Part 30
Missions is to be a vital part of all our lives. If you aren't praying for, and supporting missions then you aren't in the mainstream of God's program — you are on the outskirts and many Churches there are on the outskirts.
Epaphras was a man of many qualities. The book of Philemon (vs 23) tells us that he was a prisoner with Paul in Rome, so we can see that he was committed to his Lord — all the way.
As I review his qualities the two that stand out most are the qualities of prayer and concern for his people. He was concerned about the people in his Church as well as the people in nearby Churches. The other Churches mentioned are Laodicea and Hierapolis. These two cities and Colosse formed a triangle. They were only a few miles apart. (about 12) He had probably met these people — maybe had taught them indeed, may have started the Churches.
In Colossians 1:7 the term for deacon (minister) is used of Epaphras. He evidently was a deacon at his Church. History and tradition indicates that he went on to become an elder there at Colosse and later was martyred there.
I'm told that his name means "lovely" a shortened form of Epaphroditus meaning "handsome or charming." A fitting name for such a man of God.
Sounds Like The Kind Of Guy That You'd Like To Have Around Your Church. Right?
So many Church leaders today are qualified yet I wonder how many of them are of this quality. This was a layman and he had these qualities. One of the first elder qualifications is "if a man desire the office." Many Church leaders are not there because they Desire the office.
We do not have prayer warriors in many of our pulpits today. We do not have concerned men in many of our pastorates today.
When I told my father that I was going to become a minister he said, "Well I guess there's good money in that." At the time I thought yes, in the liberal denominations but not in the fundamental circles. Today I feel that it is coming into fundamental circles. I fear that the ministry is becoming an occupation to many young men. Not a bond slaves life of service for his Lord with his Lord's people, but a job and career.
Peter gives a proper picture of an elder in 1 Peter 5:1-4. You should read it sometime.
Epaphras had many qualities. Indeed these qualities should be aspired to by all believers, but they ought to be resident in all of our Church leadership. In the years to come I trust that you will look for men of prayer, men of concern, men of service, men of Christ, men who are desirous of being a shepherd.
Recently I saw an interview of a shepherd here in the western U.S. They ask him of his life and he described the small wagon that he lived in month after month and the danger that he faced to protect the sheep. He spoke of the long months of crying over the loneliness before he finally got used to it. They ask him why he was a shepherd. His reply was this, "The sheep needed to be cared for and I chose to be a shepherd."
We need men in our pulpits and our board rooms that have chosen to be shepherds -- men who desire to care for the sheep. May your future shepherds be so dedicated. May your future shepherds be so concerned.
Christ is pictured as a shepherd in the New Testament. May our shepherds be like our heavenly shepherd.
We must take our application one step further before we close. If you were to compare YOUR life to that of Epaphras how would YOU compare? Paul chose the term "SERVANT" for Epaphras, if Paul were writing about you today could he use the term "servant" of you?
Can you in your own mind say, "My life is a God-used life."? If you can't say "Yes" then you need to spend time getting to know your Master and seeing what He wants you to do.
5. ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH
What are Ordinances? Orders that are an annoyance? Orders? Religious rite?
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary mentions, "1 a: an authoritative decree or direction: ORDER b: a law set forth by a governmental authority; specif: a municipal regulation 2: something ordained or decreed by fate or a deity 3: a prescribed usage, practice, or ceremony....." (By permission. From Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary copyright 1991 by Merriam-Webster Inc., publisher of the Merriam-Webster (registered) Dictionaries.)
We won't take time to look at the term in scripture because as near as I can tell the term is not used in conjunction with any of the ordinances that we accept, nor any that are suggested. The idea of the term is similar to the accepted definition today. An item which is legally required to fulfill your position as a citizen or member of an organization.
Some might suggest the word "sacrament" as a synonym. This is not acceptable in that the term sacrament usually conveys the thought that grace is being transmitted to the person involved in the ordinance. This comes to us from the Roman Catholic Church were baptism, communion, marriage, etc. are all sacraments and they all confer grace upon the participant.
An ordinance never has grace linked to it in the idea of the Protestant Church. Grace is not offered, extended, nor received. The person at the same time should never be involved in an ordinance if they think that grace is involved for they do not understand the ordinance properly.
Ordinance is something that is prescribed as a part of the normal local church life. The universal Church is to be a part of those ordinances, yet the universal Church cannot participate in fully in the ordinances.
Most feel there were two ordinances provided to the Church and they are baptism and the Lord's table.
Samuel Fisk in the article "Is Foot Washing For Today? in the Baptist Bulletin Oct. 76, (Regular Baptist Press, Shaumburg, IL) lists some items we might consider as we think about Church ordinances.
1. He mentions that an ordinance must be a command of Christ.
2. Mark Fisk mentioned that the ordinance must be directly related to truth in the gospel and closely related to the believer's salvation.
3. An ordinance must be something that was given for the Church universal, not just individual believers.
4. An ordinances should also be something that was practiced by the New Testament church.
5. An ordinance should be something that was for not only the early church, but was something that was meant for the ongoing, growing Church.
These seem good, but may have been arrived at by looking at the two accepted ordinances and determining what an ordinance is based on what is observed in the two.
There are other suggested ordinances that we might take a look at before we move on to baptism and the Lord's table.
FASTING
Fasting is considered an ordinance by some Plymouth brethren and a few Baptists.
We will not take time to look at references, but let us list some of the things that we know about fasting.
1. Some suggest it is used as a reminder to pray for a specific item. The hunger will remind you.
2. Others feel that the time usually spent eating should be given to prayer.
3. It is usually linked to prayer in the Scripture. However, the term can be used simply of "no food." (Mark 8:3)
4. The disciples and the followers of John fasted.
5. It gives proof of the sincerity of the individual that is praying.
6. Fasting is used heavily in the Old Testament in relation to remorse or contrition. It seems to be used that way in Acts 9:9 when Saul was waiting for the Gospel after the road to Damascus. Otherwise, the New Testament does not necessarily have that connotation.
7. Christ fasted for forty days and nights.
8. Fasting is not an item that is commanded nor is it one that is prescribed for the Church. The indications are, however that fasting is not wrong and indeed it is for the Church age if an individual would desire to become involved in it. (Acts 13:1ff mentions the Church leaders fasted before they sent Saul and Barnabus out; Acts 14:23 mentions that Paul fasted after he had ordained elders in the Churches; Acts 27:33 seems to be the context of not being able to eat rather than a religious fasting — Paul is speaking to the sailors of the ship that had been shipwrecked; I Co. 7:5 indicates that fasting is for this age, in that he mentions married couples involved in fasting and praying; 2 Corinthians 6:5 tells us that it was one of Paul's practices, though some may indicate that this was referring to Acts 27:33 and the shipwreck.)
From my vast acquired knowledge and experience, I will mention a few other points.
1. There are missionaries that fast once a week, and it is a time of prayer for special needs.
2. I know of no pastor that fasts, yet I might add I don't know that many missionaries that do. I will also add, that fasting is not the type of thing that a person advertizes. It may very well be something they desire to be special between themselves and their Lord.
3. Fasting, by those that I have talked to, never leaves a person hungry as such. They might notice their stomach is feeling differently, but it is not hunger. Usually people mention they never miss the meal, but tremendously enjoy the fellowship with the Lord.
I would encourage you to consider fasting as something special, usually for a certain item of concern in prayer. I might illustrate by telling of what one day of fasting resulted in for one couple. A missionary couple was placed
before a large Church as an item for prayer and fasting. The congregation gave their lunch time over to prayer, and committed themselves to pray as the Lord brought the item before them.
The next day the missionary was able to schedule a meeting with a man that he had been trying to meet with for two years. The couple was informed they had been given a large sum of money to be divided monthly over a number of months. The couple was informed that their Church had decided to meet concerning supporting them.
Fasting may not always produce such nice results, but you may be assured any special time given to the Lord will be a blessing.
Revival is linked to fasting at times in history. Jonathan Edwards for example fasted three days before he preached his great sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," which moved many people to repentance and salvation.
Though I do not see that fasting is an ordinance, it is plain that it is for today as the believer is led. It is an item which has not gained wide usage in most circles to my knowledge, though it probably should.
FOOT WASHING
John 13:4-17 is the text to consider.
"He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe [them] with the towel wherewith he was girded. Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also [my] hands and [my] head. Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash [his] feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean. So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said
unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for [so] I am. If I then, [your] Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them."
Why do we not practice this act of foot washing?
If we accept the thoughts of Mark Fisk, then we see that the foot washing is outside the qualifications set forth. In verse 7 the Lord told them they didn't understand what He was doing. If this was to be an ordinance it would seem that the disciples would have explained the item more fully at a later date if it were to be an ordinance or even common practice among the apostles. None of the Scripture writers mention the explanation of all this.
Some suggest 1 Timothy 5:10 as a possible foot washing text. It however seems to be related to good works and if this is the case then many other New Testament "good works" would become ordinances, especially those listed in the passages immediate context. (See the underlined phrases.)
10 "Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work."
Christ was not instituting an ordinance when He washed the apostles feet, but rather he was setting an example and showing them that humility was needed in their future thinking.
In short this means that Christ led the perfectly humble life and in his coming He had lowered Himself. The idea of washing the feet instead of the whole body depicts the thought of cleansing of sin not the whole process of salvation again.
The Timothy text, by the way mentions that a widow washed the feet of the "saints" a general term. The foot washers normally practice the rite in separated groups — men with men and women with women. If they were
going to use it as a proof text, they would have to have the women wash everyone's feet.
The statement of the Lord, "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me." in John 13 may prove to be a problem, in that if foot washing is to be done and we don't do it then we are lost to hell. That would place a higher importance upon foot washing than any ordinance. There is no "work" that we can refrain from that will cost us our salvation. This would indicate that this is indeed, not an ordinance. There is no indication in all of the New Testament that the foot washing was to be carried on in the future.
In my own reading, I have not found any indication that any major group of history practiced it as an ordinance. Indeed, the early Church did not seem to practice it. So, might we say that foot washing is not an ordinance?
May we say that foot washing is not to be done in any form in our day? No, for there is nothing wrong with it if the person wants to use it as a sign of humility and service, yet it seems that the time and effort might be better spent in the actual serving to the good of someone. We do not really need to wash feet in our society as they did in the Lord's era.
"After bowing, greeting, and kissing, the eastern guest is offered water for washing his feet. Wearing of sandals would naturally necessitate foot washing, but it is often done when shoes have been worn. a servant will assist the guest by pouring the water upon his feet over a copper basin, rubbing the feet with his hands, and wiping them with a napkin." (Taken from: "Manners And Customs Of Bible Lands"; Wright, Fred H.; Copyright 1953, Moody Bible Institute of Chicago; Moody Press. Used by permission.)
There may be some societies in the world that it might well be appropriate, but not as an ordinance.
There is no reason to involve ones self in foot washing, because the Lord had in mind the idea of serving one another.
The serving can be done in many ways other than washing a persons feet.
There are some that might view the anointing of oil as an ordinance also however there is no evidence for such an idea.
THE LORD'S TABLE
When teaching the Lord's table I usually have a class discuss the elements, the sequence of elements and the frequency. Normally there is little discussion on what the elements are or the sequence, however the frequency stirs some discussion. I then read the following text.
"And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer; For I say unto you, I will not any more eat of it, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves; For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you; this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." Luke 22:14-20
You should notice that the cup was first and that two cups were mentioned. RELAX. We haven't been doing it wrong. The Lord's Supper was part of the Passover meal that had multiple cups. We base our observance on I Corinthians 11.
Now as to the frequency question, we should remember that the last supper where the Lord instituted the observance took place at Passover a YEARLY observance. In light of this and "as often as ye eat this" should we not celebrate the Lord's table only once per year? Furthermore, this occurred after 6 pm on the 13th of Nisan which is April 13th after 6 pm. This is specifically when the Lord's table should be observed.
NO. "as often as ye eat this" comes from 1 Corinthians 11:26 and this is what Paul told us to do. This has nothing to do with how often — only that when we do it, it is to be a remembrance.
Paul does not mention the Passover nor does he mention the second cup. Indeed, this seems to be the Lord laying out for us through Paul the procedure for the observance. There is no need to observe the Passover any more so the idea of "as often as ye eat" would indicate more the idea of every time you eat bread and wine rather than yearly.
COMMUNION
Communion has been defined in many ways among which are the idea of fellowship, friendship, comradery, agreement or having things in common.
Scripturally communion is the term "koinonia" and has the idea of fellowship rather than the observance that Christ set forth.
Indeed, the term communion or "koinonia" is translated fellowship and is placed as separate from the breaking of bread which most feel is the observance of the Lord's table in Acts 2:42, "and fellowship, and in breaking of bread."
The Lord's table certainly should have communion or fellowship between those involved, but specifically the better term for the observance would probably be the Lord's table. There is only one passage that mentions communion and the Lord's table together, and it is somewhat doubtful as to what communion relates to, the observance as much as the fellowship.
THE LORD'S TABLE
There are four main passages that relate to the rite. There are three in the Gospels that relate to the beginning of the observation, while the Corinthians passage relates to the specifics of it. (Mark 14; Matthew 26; Luke 22; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26)
From Paul, we learn that the bread symbolizes Christ's body, the wine His blood and the elements remembered are a proclamation of His death. The command to observe "until He comes" is significant because He is coming again. The Gospels relate this coming to the setting up of His kingdom.
The Greek terms body, blood, cup, and bread carry no special significance. They are words that are normally translated as they appear here. The word translated remembrance has the connotation of remember again.
The text of Hebrews 10:3 shows the yearly sacrifice for Israel was so that they could have a clear conscience. It also was "A Remembrance Again Made Of Sins Every Year." In 1 Corinthians 11 it is The Remembrance Again Of The Taking Care Of That Sin.
There are a number of views held concerning the observance of The Lord's Table. We will look briefly at these.
ROMAN CATHOLIC
Transubstantiation: This teaches that the elements of the Lord's table (bread and wine) are, through the words that the priest repeats, changed into the literal body and blood of Christ and are offered before God anew. The left over host or wafer is kept in a box on the alter, and it cannot be desecrated, for it is the actual body of Christ. They offer Christ anew each time the mass is held in every cathedral and church in the world.
They must, by their thinking, view this as one of the sources of grace and indeed they do. Each time they receive the host they also accept grace. It is very prevalent in their writing that without the priest to make these changes in the bread and wine there would be no salvation available to the people. It is of great interest to me that some of these same people have accepted the outward trappings of the charismatic movement, and are now seeking to draw that movement into fellowship with them. The Charismatic Catholic is a contradiction in true terms. They have just added tongues to Holy Mother Church and hope that they will fool some with their terminology.
I would like to include a cute short story from an Irish viewpoint concerning this topic. The author is unknown, but I received it from Gospel Outreach; PO 7078; Philadelphia, PA; 19149.
A ROMAN MIRACLE (?)
"A pretty maid, a Protestant, was to a Catholic wed; To love all Bible Truths and tales, quite early she'd been bred. It sorely grieved her husband's heart that she would not comply
And join the Mother Church of Rome and heretics deny.
"So day by day he flattered her, but still she saw no good Would ever come from bowing down to idols made of wood;
The mass, the host, the miracles, were made but to deceive;
And transubstantiation, too, she'd never dare believe.
"He went to see his clergyman and told him his sad tale
'My wife's an unbeliever, sir, you can perhaps prevail; For all your Romish miracles my wife has strong aversion,
To really work a miracle may lead to her conversion.'
"The priest went with the gentleman — he thought to gain a prize.
He said, 'I will convert her, sir, and open both her eyes.' So when they came into the house, the husband loudly cried, 'The priest has come to dine with us.' 'He's welcome,; she replied.
"And when, at last, the meal was o'er, the priest at once began
To teach his hostess all about the sinful state of man; The greatness of our Savior's love, which Christians can't deny
To give Himself a sacrifice and for our sins to die.
"'I will return tomorrow, lass, prepare some bread and wine;
The sacramental miracle will stop your soul's decline.' 'I'll bake the bread,' the lady said. 'You may,' he did reply. 'And when you've seen this miracle, convinced you'll be, say I.'
"The priest did come accordingly, the bread and wine did bless.
The lady asked, 'Sir, is it changed?' The priest answered, 'Yes, It's changed from common bread and wine to truly flesh and blood;
Begorra, lass, this power of mine has changed it into God.'
"So having blessed the bread and wine, to eat they did prepare;
The lady said unto the priest, 'I warn you to take care, For half an ounce of arsenic was mixed right in the batter, But since you have its nature changed, it cannot really matter.'
"The priest was struck real dumb -- he looked as pale as death. The bread and wine fell from his hands and he did gasp for breath.
'Bring me my horse.' the priest cried, 'This is a cursed home.' The lady replied, 'Begone, tis you who shares the curse of Rome.'
"The husband too, he sat surprised, and not a word did say At length he spoke, 'My dear,' said he, 'The priest has run away;
To gulp such mummery and tripe, I'm not, for sure, quite able; I'll go with you and will renounce this Roman Catholic Fable.'"
LUTHERAN
Consubstantiation: In years past this was the thought that as the bread and wine descended into your stomach it became the actual body and blood of Christ. This is a bit more believable than the Roman view. This has changed, I have been told, to a system of belief that the elements are
bread and wine, however as you receive them you receive the body and blood of Christ which is in and around the elements.
The original Lutheran, Martin Luther, believed that grace was transmitted through the elements. This is natural because he was coming out of the Roman church and would not have been able to change all of his false teaching over night. From a Short Exposition of Dr. Martin Luther's Small Catechism P 26 "...that in the sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us...." This is based on Matthew 26:28 "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Since remission of sins comes from the blood of Christ — to say there is forgiveness in communion is to say that the wine IS the blood of Christ.
They speak of the "real presence" of Christ in the elements.
TRADITIONAL
These people believe that the elements are as they were when Christ used them — symbolic of the body and blood. There is no change of elements nor benefit in the taking of the elements.
It is only a remembrance of the Lord's death on the cross for our sins. There is no grace or benefit forthcoming from the elements nor from the observance itself.
HOW OFTEN
The Christian church I attended as a child held the communion service every Sunday as an integrated part of the worship service. While speaking of the past I might observe from my childhood and adulthood, a marked difference in the observance and the people participating. In my unsaved childhood days, I observed a very marked reverence toward the observance. The older men of the church served the elements after two of the men had a devotional and prayer. There was lots of goofing off in my area during church, but when the communion service was in progress the order of the day was no fooling around, no reading, no gum chewing and nothing else. You were to sit quietly and do nothing. I KNEW there was something special about this observance though I did not know what it was.
The majority of churches that I have attended over the years have observed it once a month.
We were in a church in Parkersberg, PA years ago and they were trying to get back to the "Biblical standard" of the Lord's Supper. The following is a part of the paragraph explaining this desire in the bulletin. "We will have the Lord's Supper the first Sunday of each month." Now you know — it is every first Sunday. Others hold the communion every three months.
Who is correct and why are they correct? The Bible says "And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread...." DAILY might be suggested. At Troas, they did it on the first day of the week for sure but maybe more — we aren't told. "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread," Acts 20:7 (We assume that break bread is related to the Lord's table.)
We don't have a command of scripture that states, thou shalt — but we do have the idea that it was at a meal. The idea of daily may have no justification in history, yet think about it. Every time you break bread, you remember the Lord's death. I have to wonder just how much of an impact that would have on the believer's daily life.
So, before you draw conclusions you need to consider: What is communion? Why do we do it? How do we do it — what is the formula? Who is to be involved? Should we call it communion? Are we doing it right? Do we need both elements? Do we need either element?
Another question of some minor significance to people in the U.S. but of importance to the Swedish. Can you do communion over the TV? They have had some serious theological discussion on the subject.
If you are going to be a missionary there are other questions for you to struggle with. For example should you use orange juice and crackers as for the Lord's table as they do in some of the tropical areas of the world, or should you maintain the grape juice and cracker standard? (Actually this is not correct if you are going to be specific. The New Testament people used wine and unleavened bread.)
Should we use unleavened bread instead of the usual fish food? After all, the bread of Passover is unleavened.
Should we use wine? There is a growing debate about this in our country at this time in our history. Some are beginning to think that we should and others abhor the possibility.
Can you have the Lord's table with someone in a hospital, care home or laid up at home? Can you have the Lord's table at camps, Bible studies and Bible colleges. These questions have some ramifications if we hold to the observance being an ordinance of the church. That would indicate that the local church is the one that is to be involved and no other organization.
IN BRIEF
Lord's supper is an observance commemorating the Lord's death on the cross. It is a remembrance of His suffering for our sin.
1. Instituted By: Christ Himself.
2. Occasion: Christ wanted to celebrate the Passover with the disciples Mark 14:14-16.
a. As a Jew He would want to keep the Passover.
b. As Christ He would want to keep the Passover as part of His perfect life.
c. As Jesus, a man, He would want to be with His disciples before His death Luke 22:15.
"And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this
Passover with you before I suffer"
The Passover was depicting Israel's firstborn being saved, while the cross was where provision for the salvation of mankind was made. A lamb was slain and eaten as a sacrifice of thanksgiving in the Passover. In the Church Age a Lamb was slain and we eat the bread that symbolizes His flesh as the sacrifice for which we offer thanksgiving.
3. Elements:
a. Bread — unleavened from the Passover meal.
b. Wine — fermented if you believe the wine they drank everyday was fermented, or non-fermented if you believe the wine they drank
everyday was non-fermented. (We won't try to answer that one. Do consider however Paul's use of the thought of controlled by wine in Ephesians five when he talks about being filled with the Spirit. Control by wine demands fermentation.)
4. Participants:
a. In the Gospels it was Christ and the eleven disciples. (Judas had gone — John 13:30)
b. In the book of Acts it was all Christians.
c. In 1 Corinthians it was the believers at Corinth. (1 Corinthians 1:1,2)
d. Today it should be those that have reason to remember what the Lord did — believers.
5. Setting: In the Gospels it was the Passover MEAL and in the book of Acts it is tied with a MEAL and in 1 Corinthians 11 it is tied with a MEAL.
The question which arises: Is it permissible to have the observance as a part of a meal? Why or why not? I have been told of churches that place the Lord's table as an integrated part of a potluck dinner and having it work quite well.
6. Time: In the Gospels it is in the evening. Other than the Gospels, I don't believe there is any indication in the New Testament as to the time of day.
7. Reasons For
a. Remember His death.
b. Remember His death till HE COMES.
c. The death remembered till He comes indicates as well the resurrection.
8. In History:
a. 125-135 AD The Didache (teaching of the apostles) states, "On every Lord's day — His special day — come together and break bread
and give thanks, first confessing your sins so your sacrifice may be pure."
b. Unger mentions, "In the earliest notices of the Lord's Supper a simple and almost literal imitation of the meal as instituted by Christ is prevalent." This would indicate similar to the Passover meal. (Unger, Merrill F.; "Unger's Bible Dictionary"; Chicago: Moody Press, 1957; P 666)
c. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia and Matthew Henry hold to similar thought — that of a meal with the observance as an integral part of the meal.
d. Vincent, in his word studies, makes a lengthy comment that is worth mentioning. "The emphasis is on Lord's." "...supper, represents the principal meal of the day, answering to the late dinner. The Eucharist proper was originally celebrated as a private expression of devotion, and in connection with a common, daily meal, an agape or love-feast. In the apostolic period it was celebrated daily. The communion-meal of the first and second centuries exhibited this character in being a feast of contribution, to which each brought his own provision." (Vincent, M.R.; "Word Studies In The New Testament"; Mac Dill AFB, Florida, Mac Donald Publishing, (no copyright) PP 787-788)
9. Historical setting: Jesus, a Jew with Jewish disciples, desired to celebrate the Jewish Passover. The only thing in the Lord's mind was based on the Old Testament. The Passover feast was a sacrifice of thanks for their first born having been spared. (Exodus 12:27)
He wanted to incorporate a new concept into His disciples' thinking. He was introducing the new covenant which was about to be sealed by His blood. New elements or old elements with meaning added is the question. It seems that He used the old elements of the meal (the wine and the bread) and gave them new significance. (Hebrews 9:15 mentions the new covenant.)
It Is Entirely Possible That Christ Was Dying On The Cross As The Jews Were Killing Their Passover Lambs.
We would be remiss not to suggest a possible application of all this to our personal lives. We have spoken of sacrifice in this study however it is concerning the lamb of the Old Testament and the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ. Ought we not talk of the sacrifice that Christ calls us to make? Romans 12:1,2 mentions that we should present ourselves a living sacrifice, Phil 2:17 mentions that the faith of those we lead to the Lord are sacrifices (soul winning), Hebrews 13:15 mentions that prayer is a sacrifice and Phil 4:18 states that giving is a sacrifice. We enjoy and remember his for us but do we sacrifice for Him?
We are to remember His death till he comes However That Includes His Death, Burial, Resurrection, And Ascension. At times we may want to dwell on the somber side of the remembrance, and other times we may want to dwell on the joyful side of the remembrance. The Passover was thanksgiving. Christ Himself placed the observance within that general context for our benefit. We should remember, but also be thankful for what He has done on our behalf.
In my adulthood I have seen all sorts of variations of methodology used in an attempt to make the time more meaningful for the participants. In general, I would guess "TRADITION" is a term that describes it in many churches. Ritual is a close second to tradition.
I would submit one further observation and suggest that the most meaningful Lord's Table observances were in a church years ago when the pastor centered the entire service, including his message, around some aspect of the Lord's Table. This was very meaningful to all the people.
Don't be afraid to make the observance of the Lord's table meaningful. Take an entire service and center it around the observance. Try your church board sometime when you get brave, and see if they would go with having it as a part or ending to a congregation meal.
I would suggest you read a poem by Helen Steiner Rice entitled "Man Cannot Live By Bread Alone."
BAPTISM
Christ commanded baptism in Matthew 28:19, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them...." It is to be the normal course of action as we are going. Baptism should be an integrated part of what we do in our ministry.
Every believer is to be baptized. Not there is danger of losing salvation, but there cannot be a proper walk with the Lord unless the believer has been obedient to the Lord in baptism.
Matthew 10:32-33 mentions,
"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."
How much we want to build here I'm not sure. The thought of refusing to identify oneself with Christ seems very serious however.
Since baptism is an outward sign of an inward change, it would be natural for the believer to want to be baptized. On the other hand, if there is no desire to give this sign, then one is left to wonder if there is an inward change.
Can we say that a person that is knowledgeable of baptism and is not baptized, is living in sin? Yes. What is the sin? The sin is disobedience, since the command is to be baptized.
The natural reaction when a person was saved in the New Testament, was to be baptized. It should be the natural thing in our own generation as well. If anyone reading this is not baptized, then I would encourage you to take that step of obedience as soon as you can.
BAPTISM DEFINED
Webster tells us, "Christian sacrament marked by ritual use of water and admitting the recipient to the Christian community...a non -Christian rite
using water for ritual purification...." (Webster, Merriam; "Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary"; Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster Inc., 1986)
In general the term relates to the act in which a person is ritually sprinkled, immersed or poured upon for identification, purification or regeneration.
A little more to the point, from a fundamental view it is, the public testimony by which a new believer identifies with the universal and local church. It is an act which signifies his salvation experience.
"Baptize" is a transliteration of the Greek term "baptizo." All Greek words used of baptism in the New Testament come from this term. It means whelmed or covered wholly with fluid. It is used in Mark 7:4 and Luke 11:38 as a purification of the Pharisees. They dipped their utensils. Dipping into water is hard to change into "sprinkle" or "pour upon" to most theologians. The question of immersion versus sprinkle or pour is based on personal desire rather than a study of the Scripture. Scripture seems to teach immersion.
There are some questions concerning Baptism? Who is baptized? Who baptizes? What mode is used?
The who is, all knowledgeable believers. The ones baptizing are the representatives of the church. This may be the pastor, the elders, the deacons, or the janitor if he is spiritual. Anyone that is spiritual may be appointed to the task of baptizing by the church leaders.
Someone once asked me in a class, "Is it wrong for a woman to baptize?" I hadn't thought of it before. I don't know that it would matter whether a man or woman baptizes. The thought of a woman baptizing women has some possibilities tied to it. I suspect that through history the men have done the work due to the fact that if a small woman attempted to baptize a large man there might be some difficulty. There may also be a feeling that the church leadership should do the ministry of baptizing.
In looking at the book of Acts, we see that hundreds of people were being baptized. In such a situation it would seem that to accomplish such a massive operation might call for both men and women to have been
involved. In considering the question, I can think of no scripture that would prohibit women from baptizing.
MODE
We want to look at the different modes of baptism so we can properly understand them.
SPRINKLING OR ASPERSION
Normally this is done over a basin of some sort and the head is sprinkled lightly as the baptismal formula is repeated.
The Roman Catholic Church practices this mode and the Evangelical Free, Methodists, and United Brethren in Christ allow it in their churches.
POURING OR AFFUSION
Again as in sprinkling a basin is used to catch the water and a pitcher is used to pour water upon the top of the head as the formula is repeated. Methodists, Evangelical Free, and the United Brethren in Christ allow for this mode in their churches.
IMMERSION
Within immersion there are several variations. The idea in all of these is that the person baptized must go completely under the water, in order to properly signify the aspect of death and resurrection.
Among the methods are these: Some dip the person under three times in quick succession and one member of the trinity is mentioned each time the person is dipped. Some dip the person and use the formula as above only they take the person under water front wards rather than the usual backwards of most churches.
Many groups use immersion: Baptists, Independents, Brethren, Christian, Church of God, 7th Day Adventist, and Mennonite. There may be others as well.
In some communist countries where it is illegal to baptize the candidate is blindfolded and they use bathtubs. This way the one baptized cannot tell the police who baptized them.
IMMERSION EXAMINED.
1. The term used, "baptizo," has a primary meaning of immerse.
2. There are two prepositions which are used of baptism and they indicate the idea of immersion rather than pouring or sprinkling — "Into" and "out of."
3. Romans 6:1-4 shows baptism as a picture of death to the old way and resurrection to the new. Immersion best pictures this. (In death you are buried and in resurrection you are raised.)
Some including myself question that this speaks of water baptism, however it indicates spirit baptism. It is a complete thing for the believer, thus since there is a close similarity between spirit and water baptism — immersion may be indicated.
4. The early church when baptizing could have used immersion. There is no logical reason for this not to have been the case. There is no idea of pouring or sprinkling hinted at in the accounts.
5. The Greek language has words for pour and sprinkle but they are not used of baptism.
6. John the Baptist went where there was much water to baptize. It would be illogical to go into the country side and use muddy river water when good clean water was available in the city. (John 3:23; 2 Kings 5:12ff shows the Jordan to be very dirty; Mark 1:15 shows that the Jordan River was used.)
7. The Ethiopian Eunuch and Phillip came up out of the water after the baptism. Coming up out of would indicate they were down in the water.
"And when they were come up out of the water...." Acts 8:39. For that matter if they were pouring why would it take two men to get a pitcher of water?
8. Christ is mentioned as coming up out of the water. Why would the Lord and John the Baptist get your feet and legs wet if they were going to pour or sprinkle? Matthew 3:6
9. Matthew 3:11,
"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:"
We have three baptisms mentioned here; one by water — John's, one by spirit — Holy Spirit, and one by fire — judgment. The final two would involve complete immersions (spirit involves the whole person and also judgment would involve the whole person), thus it would seem that the water baptism would also be a complete immersion as well.
10. Immersion was the order of the early church. The first indication from the church fathers of baptism other than immersion is that of pouring in the case of people that were sick and could not be immersed. This was called clinical baptism. The people, so baptized, were viewed as inferior. There is a possibility there was an element of baptismal regeneration in their thinking. Cyprian quoted an Old Testament verse that mentioned a sprinkling for purification.
Cyprian (A.D. 200-257) seems to be one of the first to introduce sprinkling.
The early Anabaptists were known to have sprinkled and poured in the early days. This was probably due to the fact they were just out of the Roman Cath. church. The fact some of them were in Switzerland in the middle of the winter affected their methodology a bit also.
INFANT BAPTISM
There are a number of groups that practice infant baptism. This is viewed as an entrance into the church body and regeneration is definitely in their minds. We need to look at this topic for a moment. Others desire infant baptism for much less spiritual reasons. I recently heard of a young mother that wanted her baby baptized because she had heard that baptismal certificates were acceptable if you lost the child's birth certificate.
THE SUGGESTED PROOF OF INFANT BAPTISM
1. The rite of circumcision is introductory to the old covenant, so the rite of baptism is the introductory rite to the new covenant.
Since Circumcision is done on infants, then so should baptism.
2. The scriptures show that entire households were baptized. Acts 16:33. The assumption is there were children and infants in the households.
3. The New Testament shows that whole households can be saved if one parent is, thus we should baptize all members. 1 Corinthians 7:14.
4. Since baptism saves, we must baptize immediately so the child will not slip into hell if it should die.
5. Matthew 28:19-20 tells us to baptize all nations. That includes babies and senior citizens.
INFANT BAPTISM REFUTED
1. There are no New Testament references of babies being baptized. If it were important to them for salvation, the writers of Scripture would have told us about it.
2. The New Testament shows that baptism follows, repentance, believing, or accepting or some combination of these. An infant can do none of these things. (Acts 2:38-39 stipulates repentance before baptism)
3. The early church fathers rejected this thought. From the Didache we read, "Before the baptism, moreover, the one who baptizes and the one being baptized must fast, and others who can. And you must tell the one being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand." (125-135) You cannot tell an infant something, and infants do not fast.
4. Let us consider the baptizing of households. We have no indication that infants were present or indeed if there were, they were baptized.
In one of the household texts is Acts 16 and in verse 32 we see, "And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house." They spoke. If they were speaking then all that heard must have heard. That would mean understanding minds and not infant minds.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia raises a question that is probably tongue in cheek, yet very appropriate. They ask if we are going to press the thought of "household," if we should suggest that dogs and cats need to be baptized.
1 Corinthians 16:15 mentions the house of Stephanas as serving God. Infants cannot serve. If the household idea is to be carried forth there is a problem in using this text.
5. Baptism is not related to salvation other than a picture. Mark 16:16 shows that disbelief is that which causes damnation.
John 1:12 mentions receive — you cannot do that as an infant.
Acts 10:47 shows they had the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. If baptism is needed before regeneration, then how could they have been indwelled by the Holy Spirit?
6. In the case of likening circumcision to baptism, we have a slight problem. If this is true then we should only baptize men, for only men were circumcised in the Old Testament. Indeed Genesis 17:12 mentions that it is to be done on the eighth day or older.
7. Matthew 28:13-20 mentions discipling and teaching. This also is impossible with an infant.
8. Ephesians 2:8-9 Mentions that salvation is of grace, and that works are not involved. Baptism is a work — something that man does and it can have nothing to do with salvation.
The whole thought of infant baptism is tied up in the thought of baptismal regeneration, the idea that baptism is an integrated part of regeneration. I would submit two more points to refute the idea of baptismal regeneration.
1. Paul mentions that he baptized few (1 Corinthians 1:17). If this is the case, and if it were the case that salvation was part of baptism, then wasn't Paul very remiss with his evangelism? If baptism is required for regeneration then Paul would have baptized those that he talked to.
2. A very clear proof that baptism is not a part of salvation is seen in the thief on the cross. The Lord told him he would be in paradise, yet the thief had not had the opportunity to be baptized.
I was in a class where a man from the Christian church was invited for a visit. We asked him about the thief on the cross and he said this was a special case. No other explanation was forth coming.
Some might wonder why people believe that baptism is part of salvation? Might I suggest a few possible reasons?
a. The "tower of Babel syndrome." (Attempting to reach God by their own accomplishments.) They think there must be something they can do to help in the process of salvation.
b. The "I'd rather do it myself syndrome." They haven't trusted Christ to take care of all there is to do.
c. The "that's the way it's always been done syndrome." That is what they have been taught and that is the way it's been and that's the way it's going to be no matter what you say, and no matter what the Scriptures say.
My employers wife once asked me just before their grandchild was going to be baptized if I thought infants should be baptized. I told her that I did not think that the Scriptures taught that concept. I sat down that night and put down some references for her and took them in the next day. She did not listen to a thing, and felt that it was right and proper to have their grandchild baptized.
Baptism, to some, brings some benefit to the one that is baptized. The Roman Church sees the rite of baptism as a means of accepting grace and it is part of their salvation. "The sacrament of Baptism confers grace." (Morrow, Louis LaRavoire; "MY CATHOLIC FAITH"; Kenosha, WI: My Mission House, 1955, P 252)
Some Lutherans feel that baptism is part of their being saved. I'd like to quote from a Lutheran in Makoti, North Dakota. "Baptism is not merely a symbol. It is the means God uses:
(1) to forgive sin,
(2) to save us,
(3) to create spiritual life through the giving of the Holy Spirit, thus beginning of formal membership in the church,
(5) [not sure where 4 went — it was missing] to adopt us into His family wherein we become legal heirs of His Kingdom, and
(6) to make us partners in Christ's death and resurrection." (from a church bulletin)
In considering baptism another question might come up. Is there any reason for an unsaved person to want to be baptized? In my childhood I was not well taught in the Bible though I was in Sunday School and church every Sunday. I had no idea what baptism was all about. The church I was taken to as a child, believed in baptismal regeneration. About ten or so my mother pushed me physically into the aisle to go forward for baptism. I returned to my seat though a few weeks later did ask to be baptized. I was taken into the church and all was proper even if I didn't know what it was about.
Others might be baptized because of popularity, or for an increase in stature in the community, however the scripture speaks to the thought of unsaved people being baptized. a. Matthew 3:7-9 John The Baptist condemned some for wanting baptism when they were unrepentant. b. It is a picture of the death burial and resurrection, so why would any unsaved person want to identify with it? c. It is an identification with Christ and His church — why would a lost person be interested. It is only an empty work if they should be baptized. It would have no meaning to the world, nor to them.
Another question. Is there any reason why a person would, or should be rebaptized? Yes. This was what the anabaptists were all about. They were catholics that had been sprinkled or poured upon as infants. When they had understanding of salvation they were rebaptized as believers. This is also seen in the case of the disciples of John the Baptist in Acts 19:1-7. This by the way shows there was a difference between the baptism of John the Baptist and Christian baptism.
If a person was baptized before they were saved then the proper step would be for rebaptism. This was the case in my own life. When I was saved there came a time when I knew that my baptism had no meaning to me or anyone else, so took steps to be baptized again in the church where I was saved.
Occasion Of Baptism: When should a person be baptized, after they are saved? Some Baptists desire and push for immediately. Some independents tell their converts whenever, and they do it as they feel they want to. The sad part of this approach is that some never do. Most independents feel that it is to be done as soon as the believer fully understands it. This may be awhile or it may be immediately.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Never baptize without talking with the person concerning their salvation, the purpose and intent of baptism, and the ramifications or responsibilities of being baptized.
2. Never push, but do encourage them — teach them the how and why soon after their conversion. For many years there was no real strong significance to baptism in this country, but more and more it is a real testimony of leaving an old life and beginning a new one. In other countries it is very significant and may be the act that solidifies your conversion to the world. In Ireland that is the last thing that the catholics will allow. They may allow going to the Bible Church, even maybe being saved, but the baptism is the BREAK with Holy Mother Church and the believer is in for ostracism from friends and relatives.
We have not discussed the baptismal formula that the Lord specified. Matthew 28:19 "...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" Just what is the implication of this formula? To the Jew they were making a commitment to a belief in Christ as the Messiah and a public recognition of his deity. God The Father, God The Son — the Messiah come, and God The Holy Spirit.
There is a difference between the baptisms that are mentioned in the New Testament. We will not go into detail on these aspects of our topic. There is a short listing of thoughts in Appendix five at the end of the book for further study.
In brief: Baptism shows the inward death of our sin nature and the creation of our new nature. It also shows our belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. These three are also pictured by the mode of immersion.
As in other topics we would like to apply the truth that has just been studied. The obvious application is to the believer that has not been baptized. The ordinance is something that comes under the thought of obedience. If a believer understands baptism properly and does not move toward being baptized, then they are involved in the sin of disobedience. May we encourage anyone in this position to consider moving toward a complete obedience to their Lord's command?
A side application might be that, as teachers of the Word, we should see to it that new believers understand the major doctrines of the faith and call them to obedience.
We trust the reader now has a complete understanding of the ordinances so that we can move on to the final portions of our study.
6. THE PHYSIQUE OF THE CHURCH
"Physique" is defined by Webster as "bodily makeup," thus we want to discuss the body makeup of the church. Just how are we arranged? We have discussed the leadership and many of the things that the believers in a local church are to do, but just how does God view the family that He has assembled? He views us as a body. We want to discuss the body of Christ for a time.
THE BODY OF CHRIST
Who is Head of the church? The pastor? The board? Mrs. Stuffed Pocketbook? Mrs. All-wise? The answer lies in the word itself — Head.
Psalm eight speaks of the dominion of the Lord before He was incarnate. Ephesians one mentions that He has dominion or Headship over the church.
Ephesians 1:22,23
"And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him
to be the head over all things to the church, which is
his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all."
Christ is the head and the church is the body. Let's think about this a moment. What implications are there in this short phrase?
What does the head do?
1. It controls the body. What happens if this control is removed? Ever see a chicken just after its head is removed? As a child I used to go to my aunt's place with my mom. Mom used to make me get clear over to the corner of the yard, then my aunt would chop a chicken's head off in the middle of the yard. the body of the chicken would take off flopping and rolling and flapping around for some time. Ever see a church after its head is removed? A man can remain conscious for a short interval of time after his head is separated from his body, but not for long. A body without a head cannot function.
2. The head contains some important equipment which some church members seem to think are located in the body.
a. The Eyes. Christ alone is all seeing. He can see far into the future and make plans. If He sees a chuckhole in the road He can guide the church around it quite well. He doesn't need a busybody telling the church what to do.
b. The Brain. Christ alone is all knowing. He does not need the unceasing wisdom of the rich elder that has built a fortune, or the sage pastor that has built a kingdom for himself. He doesn't even need the all-knowing teen that knows the church is being run all wrong. He — Christ can control the body.
c. The Nose. He can smell out trouble and alert the pastor or elders to it without the self — appointed gossip helping.
d. The Ears. He hears enough gossip without us. God has one that is in the business of reporting our errors to the Lord. A poem by Martha Snell Nicholson entitled My Advocate relates to this point.
e. The Tongue. You might try a long detailed study of James 3 concerning the tongue? Our tongues are not really necessary except in witnessing and praising Him.
3. The head tells the body what to do and where to go. How far do we let this go? To what extent do we let Christ lead in the church? It would seem from Matthew 10:30 that Christ wants to lead in all areas of our life, "But the very hairs of your head are all numbered."
A woman in Denver needed a pair of shoes. She found two pair that might work. she really liked and wanted the expensive pair and the cheaper pair were almost ugly. She told the Lord to help her know which pair to buy. She allowed Him to choose. She tried both pair on. The cheap pair did not fit at all. The pair she liked fit perfectly.
We as individuals and as a church are His Body. A close relationship. He is interested in every part of our personal life and our church life. We should learn to take even small things to Him for a decision.
4. The head in the case of the church is the life giver. As the physical body dies without the head, so dies the church without Christ.
How do we treat this head of ours?
Ephesians tells us that God has raised Him, but I wonder if we don't often lower Him. We try to humanize Him and bring Him down to our level.
God placed Christ at His right hand, but many churches put Him beside Rock and Roll music in the sanctuary in the name of evangelism.
God placed all things under His feet, but we tread upon Him — we say we serve Him yet seldom do anything for His work.
He seems to have little power over His church in America today.
God made Him Head of the Church, but for the most part He is more like a headstone in front of a grave full of bones.
A rewrite of Ephesians 1:20-23 might show what man has done to Christ today. "When they lowered him to the depths of humanism--and set him under their feet in every earthly place--and hath placed him as dust, under foot, and gave him to be head over the church which is his dried bones, the emptiness of him that once filled the universe."
Let's consider some verses in Ephesians 1:15-23.
15. "Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, And what [is] the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set [him] at his own right hand in the heavenly [places], Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all [things] under his feet, and gave him [to be] the head over all [things] to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all."
Let's consider that phrase, "All things under His feet."
1. All things are subject to Him; the earth, the heavens, all mankind (not outwardly toward Him but He is in control), and the Devil. All the universe is subject to Him, yet He allows the believer to decide his own subservience to his Lord — the one that has the position and power to command subservience.
2. Matthew 28:18 says all power was given to Him.
a. He has the power to provide for us. No matter what our financial position. He is in the business of supplying. (Matthew 6:33)
b. He has the power to protect us from danger, from sin, from the Devil.
c. He has the power to prove us. That problem you had last week may have been a test.
d. He has the power to perpetuate Himself through us. By our witnessing, His power can bring people to Himself. Notice: His power.
Another phrase to consider, "Head over all things to the Church."
The key word is "all" — Every area. There is no area of your life that Christ is not over. Not an area that He isn't interested in. In the church the matter is the same. There is nothing in the operation of the church that Christ should not be over.
"Which is His body." As a local assembly with Him as Head are we a 90 lb. weakling or a Charles Atlas? For the younger generation let me explain what a 90 lb. weakling is. When I was a child there was an ad that used to be on all the magazines and comic books. A scrawny guy with a beautiful girl was lying on the beach. A huge muscle man came along and kicked sand into the 90 lb weaklings face and took his girl away from him. Somewhere in the ad was a picture of an even bigger muscle man with the earth on his back. This of naturally was Charles Atlas, the man that was selling the course on muscle building.
With Christ's power we're Charles Atlas — ready to hold the world on our back. Without His power we're a 90 lb. weakling.
"The fullness of him that filleth all in all." The church is the fullness of Christ. Do you really believe that? Think about the church as a whole
today. If this is the fullness of Christ, then Christ is a pauper and beggar. We have failed to show forth the fullness of Christ. Imagine — we can show forth the fullness of the one that filleth everything.
"filleth all in all." This phrase has the idea of cram. This is the only usage in the New Testament of this word. Many years ago at work we used to have one trash can in the shop. It was a long way out to where we dumped it. We prolonged the inevitable by pushing it down by hand until we can't push it down any more, then we would use our feet to stomp it down a little more, and then we would stack it so high that it fell on the floor. Then sometimes we would find a box to sit by the trash can which we would cram as full as we possibly could by pushing and stomping.
Christ fills all in all like we used to fill that trash can. He crams every corner and overflows all there is.
That's my Lord. I trust that the church today can sometime visualize what they could do if they applied this text. How do we get ahead in our churches today? Make Christ the one in charge.
What application do we find in this doctrine of the headship of Christ?
CONCERNING THE LOCAL CHURCH
1. He should be consulted on all decisions being made. This is done by the prayers of teachers, elders, pastors, and all Christians in that church.
2. He should be preeminent in all things. Everything should be geared to furthering His gospel and His glory.
3. We should seek to build up the body to make it strong, as well as bigger, for Him. The body will one day be His bride.
Concerning The Church Invisible:
1. Many will be surprised to see who is in the body. Many of those we disagree with doctrinally will be there. This is not to say that we should be associated with them. Some, I think, will be as members with a disease. They will become holy through Christ's transforming power at the rapture.
2. You can disagree with other churches if they don't give Christ this place of Head in their group or church.
Concerning The Believer:
1. This doctrine could also be entitled the Lordship of Christ. Christ is Head — He is Lord. There is one distinction. He's officially Head, but only Lord as we allow Him that position. This is true for the church as well. Allowing Christ Lordship is simply allowing Christ to have control of our life, and to have access to every area of life; be that area your innermost secret, or innermost problem, be that area your dating, be that area your job, be it anything.
Christ is Head officially — now let's let Him be Head in practice. Let us as individuals and churches begin to allow Him to make the decisions.
We need to consider this picture that is used to describe us. We are told that we are the body of Christ. Consider that picture for a moment or two. First, there are several bones in the body of Christ. these bones are also found in each one of us. How well the body gets along depends on how much these bones are used.
1. Knee bone — How much prayer is offered on the bended knee?
2. The backbone — how may great laborers do our churches have.
3. Wishbone — This is often put to use instead of the knee and backbone. ("Oh, I wish the church would grow.")
4. The most used bone in the church today should be the least used — the jawbone. It has its good use — when it's operating for the Lord.