Thrust Statement: One can nullify the commandments of God
through his/her fossilized traditions from the church fathers.
Scripture Reading: Matthew 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13
Jesus rebukes the religious leaders for their hypocrisy in their so-called worship of God. He charges them with worship that is vain through the commandments of men: “They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men” (Matthew 15:9). Many Christians today hurl these words of Jesus against other believers when their practices do not coincide with their particular brand of orthodoxy. This citation of Matthew is wrenched from its context in order to justify the withdrawal of fellowship from other believers. Generally, this Scripture is alluded to in order to condemn other believers over the so-called five acts of worship, which so it is maintained that God ordained. Divisions exist within the Churches of Christ, as well as other denominations, over the exact pattern to be adhered to when Christians assemble on Sunday morning to carry out their ritualistic worship service.[1]
Should one cite this Scripture against other believers when they do not see “eye to eye” with his/her understanding of how the five acts are to be performed on Sunday morning? Is it appropriate to quote this famous passage (15:9) against disciples of Jesus who employ mechanical instruments—drums, harps, tambourines, pianos, and so on—in their assemblies? Is it proper to employ this citation from Matthew’s Gospel to clobber any and all who dare use individual cups in the distribution of the fruit of the vine in the observance of the communion? Is it fair to cite this verse against those who allow individuals to sing solo in the assembly? Is it correct to allude to this statement of Jesus to condemn quartet singing in the Sunday morning gatherings? Should one refer to this rebuke by Jesus against followers of Jesus who use wine instead of grape juice as the drink element in the Lord’s Supper? Or, should one call forth this Scripture citation of Jesus against congregations who choose to arrange classes on Sunday mornings to teach children and individuals according to their age?
Roy H. Lanier cites Matthew 15:9 against those whom he believes are
teaching doctrinal errors. Thus, if one is not doing things the way Lanier
thinks they should be observed, then he calls forth Matthew 15:9 with the following comments: “God will not accept worship. Jesus makes it
clear that the worship of men are in serious doctrinal error will be vanity
(Matt. 15:1-9—emphasis his).”[2]
The focus of Lanier’s comments is that God will not accept one’s worship when
there are serious doctrinal errors. But
Lanier is the one who determines the weightiness of the doctrinal blunders. In
this article Lanier skirts around the real issues without really naming the
doctrinal errors explicitly, but in another article, he cites Mark 7:1-14 (parallel to Matthew 15:1-9) to justify separation from Christians
who employ the use of the instrument.[3] One cannot find fault with his statement:
“Worship has always been a serious matter to God.”[4]
Is this not the reason that Jesus addresses the religious leaders about true
worship? But when Lanier relies upon Jesus’ castigation of the religious
leaders to condemn Christians whose practices do not coincide with his
understanding, he offers no evidence to uphold his application of Mark 7:1-14. He just assumes that his application is
equal to Jesus’ statement of rebuke.
Is it reasonable to repeat the words of Jesus in the Markan or Matthean passages to ostracize other Christians who participate in the above-mentioned acts performed on Sunday mornings that do not adhere to the thinking of Lanier and other Christians? On the face of his article, there does seem credibility, but, upon closer examination, one discovers that his arguments are not logical according to context. Cedric B. Johnson offers an informative comment in this regard when he writes:
My contention is that conflicting theological positions are in part due to the fact that we all approach a text, sacred or secular, with our strong subjective biases. Even though we have a commitment to read the Bible on its own terms; and even though we want the Divine and human authors to speak for themselves, somehow we still come up with contradictory views on some issues.[5]
Just a slight perusal of the Matthean account of Jesus’ encounter with the Pharisees and the religious leaders reveals that these individuals were guilty of nullifying one Scripture with another Scripture in order to maintain their position of neglecting their responsibilities of financial help toward their parents. Things have not changed. Today, many Christians are repeating the same type mental gymnastics the religious leaders exhibited in Jesus’ day. It is not uncommon for believers to overthrow other clear passages of Scripture that advance the notion that unity is more important than perfect agreement upon every doctrinal point (see Romans 14 and 15; 1 Corinthians 8). Just as Satan sought to cancel out one Scripture with another Scripture, so, today, Christians frequently cancel one Scripture with another (see Matthew 4:1-11).
There is a need for a reevaluation of Matthew 15:9 in light of its context. It is possible
for an interpreter to miss the intended meaning because of an incomplete
understanding of the pericope (unit or section) in question. One’s
interpretation of Matthew 15:1-9 is often colored by one’s preconceived ideas as to what the
“commandments of God” constitute. This phrase is seized upon by many
well-meaning Christians to target any interpretation of the Scriptures that
does not uphold a particular party interpretation. Each isolated faction cites
this same Scripture to hack to death the opposite splinter group that does not
consent to the other’s ecclesiastical organization’s viewpoint. Each side
wishes to shoot the other side with the word hypocrite.
This word hypocrite
(uJpokrithv", &upokriths) is indiscriminately directed toward
anyone who dares to hold a different view from the so-called guardians of
truth. Jesus employs this word against the religious leaders for their
manipulation of the text of Scripture. When one confounds the Word of God with
his/her interpretation, then there is a sense in which this word hypocrite may accurately describe the one
who hurls such derogatory remarks against the other. Fritz Rienecker and Cleon
Rogers give a concise answer to the meaning of this word as employed by Jesus:
“Hypocrite, a legalist who manipulates the law w. casuistry and hair-splitting interpretation
for his own benefit.”[6]
Before investigating the use of the word hypocrite
by Jesus, perhaps a few examples of how this pericope (Matthew 15:1-9) is employed by the various warring
factions within the Churches of Christ should shed some light on the dilemma
that many Christians face in approaching differences within the community of
Christ. Since this essay introduced Lanier as an example of one who has
misapplied this section (15:1-9) of Jesus’ words, it is appropriate that one begin with
more of an in-depth view of his handling of the text.[7]
Many sincere Christians, such as Roy H. Lanier, as mentioned above, relate this passage against those who encourage a wider view of fellowship. He defends his views of banishment based upon his understanding of this much-abused text. He explains his justification for kicking out others from his sectarian group very forcefully in his comments:
Isolated along the fringes of the “front
line,” in the warfare concerning proper fellowship, are the lonely preachers
and teachers of the Midwest. Men in the states north of Oklahoma, east of the
Rocky Mountains, and west of the Ohio Valley, are the ones bearing the brunt of
questions of fellowship with Independent Christian Churches, since that is the area
of their strongest work. . . . Typical questions I receive might include the
following: (1) “Can we say the ‘instrumental brethren’ are not to be
fellowshipped since God did not specify instrumental music is wrong?” (2) “Even
if they are guilty of presumptuous sin, can we not fellowship them?” . . . Such
questions may not include all the details of the problems that exist between
the Lord’s church and the Independent Christian Churches, but they are
representative of most of the principles involved . . . which Jesus said was a
rejection of the commandments of God (v.9) [emphasis mine—RDB).[8]
One can quickly observe the subtlety in Lanier’s distinction between his distinctive religious crowd and other groups. He leaves out the Independent Christian Churches as a part of the Lord’s Church, only his odd fellowship constitutes the true Church. Lanier seems to have forgotten that his denomination is just one denomination among others that came out of the Stone/Campbell Movement.[9] The three distinct religious clusters that came out of the Stone/Campbell Movement are: (1) Churches of Christ, (2) Christians Churches, and (3) Disciples of Christ. He is typical of many Christians who apply Matthew 15:9 against other Christians. As a young preacher, back in the 60s and early 70s, I cited this Scripture against him for his use of individual cups and his participation in Sunday school (now called Bible study).
In Lanier’s zeal to be true to God, he states, without any proof, that one’s employment of the instrument in praising God is a “heart problem, not a hermeneutical one.”[10] He discounts that there is another side to the controversy.[11] One cannot help but reflect upon the words of Paul to the Romans as one reads such a stinging castigation of someone with whom Lanier differs. Listen to Paul as he rebukes some of the Christians at Rome for their lack of toleration for different opinions:
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2 One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind (Romans 14:1-5).
Lanier’s association of the music question
with the “commandments of men,” is based upon his faulty understanding of
worship—a worship service with five acts to be performed in a prescribed
manner.[12]
He has jumped to a number of unjustified conclusions. He is skilled in his proof-texting approach to substantiate his
beliefs. In fact, he wrenches Romans 16:17, Titus 3:10, and 2 John 9-11 to bolster his claims for his ungodly
behavior.[13] But
Lanier is not alone in this kind of reading of the text as taught by
generations of interpreters. The traditions in the church make it difficult to
read accurately the text. Every Christian must learn to reevaluate and
reinterpret what has been handed down from generation to generation. Lanier is
in danger of finding himself the prisoner of his own tradition, which is
sovereign among his fellowship. The next case study is from Homer L. King,
former editor of Old Paths Advocate (a one-cup and non-Sunday school journal).
He, too, cites this same Scripture (Matthew 15:1-9) to justify his separation from men like
Lanier.
Homer L. King (1892-1983)[14] also cited Mark 7:7-9 to justify his break with men like Lanier.[15] King, like Lanier, relied upon 2 John 9,[16] Matthew 15:9, 13,[17] and Jeremiah 6:16[18] to rationalize separation from Christians who refused to equate King’s interpretation of the Word with the Word itself. The following chart gives the three citations that he used to justify his unbrotherly behavior:
2 John 9 |
Matthew 15: 9, 13 |
Jeremiah 6:16 |
|
Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. |
They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men (v. 9). “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots (v. 13). |
This is what the LORD says: “Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls. But you said, ‘We will not walk in it.’ |
King did not accept men like Lanier. Why? Well, he believed that he was not continuing in the “teaching of Christ” according to 2 John 9. Since Lanier employs individual communion cups in the Lord’s Supper, then his worship is vain because he is teaching the “commandments of men.” The acceptance of individual communion cups and Sunday school constituted “commandments of men” according to King and those associated with the Old Paths Advocate clique. According to King, Lanier left the old paths as mentioned by Jeremiah 6:16. King forcefully argues the validity of his decision:
The above Scriptures and many others forbid any changes in matters of divine arrangement. . . . If we conform to the above law of limitation, we know that we shall have to abandon any claim to human creeds, human names for the church or its members, denominational churches, human organizations and societies to do the work of the church . . . instrumental music, Sunday schools, cups in the communion, the modern pastory system wherein the evangelist is taken out of his sphere to do the work of the elder. . . . Hence, we cannot remain or abide in the “doctrine of Christ” (2 John 9) while contending for them.[19]
In this article, King rebukes Christians
who practice the clergy system, participate in Bible colleges, sing with
instrumental accompaniment, provide Sunday schools for various ages, serve
grape juice in individual cups instead of one common cup, and breaks the bread
into pieces instead of pinching the bread so that it remains whole. The thing
that grabs one’s attention is his reference to Matthew 15:9 to defend his actions. Yet, this is the
identical Scripture that Lanier also names to justify his disconnection from
Christians who disagree with him. King, like Lanier, manipulates this Scripture
to condemn Lanier for his involvement in the so-called “innovations,” such as
individual cups and Sunday school. On the other hand, Lanier quotes this same
passage to account for his split with the Christian Church. Both men employ this passage directed
against the religious leaders in Jesus’ day to rationalize their rupture of the
body of Christ into warring factions.
Lanier, as mentioned above, thinks that Christians who disagree with
his interpretations have a heart problem. Yet, the one-cup and non-Sunday
school Movement also thinks that its position is not a matter of hermeneutics
either, but rather a heart problem for those who do not concur with its
fanciful interpretations. As one
reflects upon the long-established interpretation of Matthew 15:9, one quickly discovers that the position
of both men appear to be built on unverifiable arguments, that is to say, the
points of view of both Lanier and King turn on assumptions rather than on a
careful reading of the text. These men are not reading the wording based on
Jesus’ own concerns, but rather they are reading the text established upon
their personal theological urgencies. When one misunderstands the Word of God,
that, in and of itself, does not indicate that the individual has a heart
problem. The following letter to this author by his second cousin (one-cup and
non-Sunday school) illustrates the principle also enunciated by Lanier—“heart
problem.”
The cited letter below from Mark Bailey is not to impugn his sincerity, but rather to illustrate the mind-set of some Christians when other Christians cannot concur with their particular brand of orthodoxy. In this letter, Bailey accuses the author of this essay of dishonesty:
Dear Dallas,
I trust this letter finds you well, at least
physically, for biblically your spiritual life is a shamble. My prayer is that
your heart will soon be open for the simple truths of God’s word and in action
will obey them. I consider speaking to you on biblical subjects almost useless
because you know the truth, as well, if not better, than I do.[20]
One cannot help but wonder about his
statement concerning the one he condemns—“You know the truth, as well, if not
better, than I do.” If this testimonial is true, which he claims that it is,
then one cannot help but wonder why Bailey does not listen more attentively to
Burdette in his explanation of the Passover traditions in the first century.[21]
I do not question his sincerity or the motives of his heart, but one must still
seek to expound the Word of God to him more accurately.[22]
Since he refuses to undertake a free examination of his long-held cherished
traditions, he allows himself to participate in absurd behavior toward a fellow
believer in Jesus the Messiah. He fails to recognize that interpretation allows
a margin of liberty. The Movement of which he is a part becomes more and more
oppressive, as it grows older, by reason of its own past.
One must not confuse an honest mistake of the heart with rebellion
against God. This confusion has sent Christian communities into a tailspin.
This author is eternally grateful to Carl Ketcherside who first brought this
concept of distinction between rebellions and an honest mistake of the heart to his attention. He says with clear
insight: “Men can be mistaken without being malicious. They can fail to
understand without falling away from Jesus.”[23]
Once more, Ketcherside seems to address correctly the dilemma of both Lanier
and King when he writes: “All of them want to respect the authority of our
Lord, but both groups confuse their interpretations with the Scriptures, and
argue for the authority of their opinions as Scripture.”[24]
It should be obvious to all Christians that when Christians disagree on
the many issues that divide, the question is not that of the heart, but rather
of hermeneutics. When Christians hold
opposing views, “they,” in the words of Ketcherside, “have not deserted Jesus.
They have not fallen away from the faith. They have not defected from the
Christian walk.”[25] The
words of Leroy Garrett also cut away all the underbrush that camouflages so
much of one’s hermeneutics and go right to the heart of the problem:
People tire of our equating our understanding
of the Word of God with the word of God itself. This is to say that we must
distinguish between revelation and interpretation. Revelation is what God has
given us in Scripture. Interpretation is what we conclude the Scriptures to
mean. One is divine, the other is human.[26]
Any belief system that does not coincide with certain views as set
forth by a particular party is looked upon as “commandments (rules) of men.” Matthew 15:9 is utilized by many sincere believers,
as stated earlier, to advocate the matching error that the Pharisees and the teachers
of the Law were guilty of in setting aside one Scripture with another
Scripture. Each Christian community should reexamine Jesus’ encounter with the
religious leaders in order to determine more accurately the focal point of
emphasis.[27] It is
not uncommon for religious leaders today to invalidate the effectiveness of
God’s Word by not keeping in mind the oneness of Scripture. The principle that
the Reformers advanced is still true—Scripture interprets Scripture.
Interpreters of the Word revoke one passage with another passage. The
principles of the Reformation must always continue, that is, there must always
be the principle of reexamination in order to rectify and correct erroneous
interpretations placed upon God’s Word. The sovereignty of a tradition is often
the result of a polluted source of other traditions. One must be careful of any
Reformation Movement that claims absolute power over souls.
As stated earlier, one’s explanation of Matthew 15:9 is often colored by his/her preconceived
ideas as to what constitutes the “commandments of men.”[28]
The “commandments of men” are often associated with the following, even though
the various groups can never properly identify what is and what is not the
commandment(s) of God versus what is and what is not the commandments of men in
dealing with a particular practice, for example: (1) church cooperation or
non-church cooperation, (2) long hair on women or cut hair [some maintain that
a woman cannot even cut the dead-ends off her hair], (3) women wearing a head
covering in the assembly [artificial veil—usually a doily] or uncut hair,
which, according to some, is the veil, (4) one common cup or individual cups,[29]
(5) Sunday school or non-Sunday school,[30]
(6) wine in the Lord’s Supper or grape juice in the Lord’s Supper, (7) solo or
congregational singing or both,[31]
(8) singing acappella or with instrumental accompaniment, (9) no divorce for
any reason—not even adultery or fornication, (10) breaking the communion bread
versus pinching the bread, and so on. This list that many Christians append to
the “commandments of men” are innumerable—left only to the imagination of men.[32]
Both Matthew and Mark record the hostilities of the Pharisees and
teachers of the Law against Jesus. Douglas Hare captures the very essence of
the conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders in his concise statement:
“He challenged his challengers by subordinating ritual observance to ethical
behavior.”[33] The religious leaders questioned Jesus about
the conduct of His disciples, which violated their long-held traditions. But
Jesus responded by calling attention to their flagrant disregard of the fifth
commandment in the Decalogue. They
violated God’s Commandment for their traditions. Mark recorded this stinging
rebuke from Jesus against the religious leaders unethical conduct: “You have let go of
the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men” (Mark
7:8).
When Christians
apply Matthew 15:1-9 and Mark 7:1-13 to other
Christians who do not give their blessings or consent to a sleight-of-the-hand
in handling the Scriptures as carelessly as the religious leaders did, then the
manipulators are just as guilty of manipulating the Scriptures to uphold their
traditions as were the ones whom Jesus hauled over the coals. At the time of this confrontation Jesus was
in Gennesaret (Matthew 14:34), which was
sixty-five miles from Jerusalem. These leaders were so hostile to the Messiah
that they were willing to travel such a long distance in order to confront him
for not binding the tradition of the Elders upon his disciples. The leaders did
not waste any time upon their arrival to question Him: “Why do your disciples break the tradition of
the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” (15:2).[34]
These
traditions were regarded as equally binding as the Word of God. In the time of
Christ, the teachers of the law—also called scribes—instilled into their
children the interpretation of the law as handed down by the famous rabbis.
Eventually, the traditions became so enormous that Rabbi Jehuda committed the
“tradition of the elders” to writing in 200 CE. This compilation of the
traditions became known as the Mishnah,
a word formed from a verb meaning “to repeat.” This massive work contains the
traditions that predate Christ about 200 years up to 200 years after Christ’s
birth. In time, it became apparent that such an enormous work needed to be
interpreted, so a commentary was written to explain the traditions, which today
is known as the Gemara, which
word is derived from a verb meaning “to complete.” Eventually these two works—Mishnah and Gemara—were combined and became known as the Talmud, which word is related to the verb
meaning “to teach.”[35]
The Pharisees and scribes (teachers
of the Law) questioned Jesus about the tradition of the elders concerning the
washing of the hands, but Jesus questioned them about their disregard for God’s
Law:
Matthew 15:1-2 |
Matthew 15:3-6 |
|
Then
some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and
asked, 2 “Why do your
disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands
before they eat!” |
Jesus
replied, “And why do you break the
command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone
who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ 5 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother,
‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to
God,’ 6 he
is not to ‘honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for
the sake of your tradition. |
This particular tradition, so it appears, is based upon the command of God to Aaron and his sons concerning the washing of hands before performing their duties in the Tabernacle:
17 Then the
LORD said to Moses, 18 “Make a bronze basin, with its bronze stand,
for washing. Place it between the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and put water
in it. 19 Aaron and his
sons are to wash their hands and feet with water from it. 20 Whenever they enter the Tent of
Meeting, they shall wash with water so that they will not die. Also, when they
approach the altar to minister by presenting an offering made to the LORD by
fire, 21 they shall wash their hands and feet so that they will not
die. This is to be a lasting ordinance for Aaron and his descendants for the
generations to come” (Exodus 30:17-21).
This
command had nothing to do with the washing of hands for the ordinary Israelite,
but this instruction concerned the priests officiating at the Tabernacle. In the time of Jesus, one senses an intense
desire on the part of the Israelites to maintain holiness, but this yearning
resulted in exaggerated emphasis upon rituals to the neglect of that which
really mattered with God. William Hendriksen has correctly observed that the
religious leaders “substituted mere legalism for true piety, outward conformity
to the tradition for the attitude of heart and mind, and torturing scrupulosity
for glad obedience.”[36]
Jesus calls the Pharisees and teachers of the Law hypocrites for their neglect of the weightier matters of the
Law and for their scrupulosity for the traditions of the elders.
As mentioned
above, the English word hypocrite
is a transliteration[37]
of the Greek word uJpokrithv" (&upokriths). F. W. Albright and C. S. Mann
reject the traditional rendering hypocrite
as play-acting.[38] These two scholars prefer the word shysters,[39]
and their assessment of this confrontation between Jesus and the religious
leaders is full of insight. Both men paint a vivid description of this scene:
Here at vii 5 there is enough of the pejorative sense to
indicate Jesus’ impatience with the legalism which is aware only of failure of
observance in others. At xv 7 we have elected to use the colloquialism
“shyster!” which connotes a total disregard for the purpose of the Law while
ostensibly paying reverence to it. The incident which provoked Jesus’
exclamation in xxii 18 seemed again to demand “You casuists!” for here the aim
of a supposedly harmless question was to bring a charge of lawlessness against
him.[40]
“You casuists” captures the essence of what Jesus felt about these
leaders. Again, Albright and Mann
further illuminate this word hypocrite:
We may even carry the sense a step further and speak of someone as “hypercritical,” intending to convey the idea that a person is given to fine, hairsplitting distinction, but we do not at the same time accuse such a person of “being a hypocrite” in our modern sense. We suggest only that his faculty of discernment is carried too far for ordinary purposes.[41]
This
hairsplitting tendency is not just a phenomenal that occurred in the first
century, but, even today, one observes the same kind of hairsplitting that the
religious leaders engaged in. For instance, Dave Miller, Director of the Brown
Trail School of Preaching in Bedford, Texas, is distressed about “handclapping”
in the so-called worship service.[42]
Not only does he object to this behavior in the assembly, but he also objects
to the practice of handclapping after baptism.[43]
For Miller, one’s emotions must be contained inwardly. One cannot help but
wonder if Miller would have rebuked the eunuch for rejoicing after his baptism.
Listen to Luke as he records the excitement on the part of the eunuch following
his baptism:
The eunuch asked Philip,
“Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35 Then Philip began with that very
passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus. 36 As
they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said,
“Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?” 38 And he gave orders to stop the
chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip
baptized him. 39 When
they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip
away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing (Acts 8:34-39).
This accusation against Miller may seem overstated; nevertheless, just a perusal of his tirade against handclapping demonstrates that this allegation against him is not an understatement. The following extract from Miller’s article explains the indictment:
Handclapping is occurring in our assemblies in two forms. First, some clap in rhythm to their worship in song. . . . Striking the hand together while singing is no more acceptable to God than striking the hands on a drum while singing. Handclapping is simply a “natural” from of “mechanical” instrumental music. . . . Handclapping is also taking place in the form of applause—usually after a baptism or during a sermon.[44]
The
result of his complaint is a number of statements that have little or nothing
in their favor to sustain his condemnation of handclapping. He assumes that God
condemns such behavior, but he presents no evidence to uphold his conclusions.
He offers his objections without sound arguments from Holy Scripture. Not only
is Miller enraged about “handclapping,” but he also wages war against solo
singing in the assembly:
But
the New Testament is extremely clear on the matter. Singing is to be
congregational, i.e., the entire church participating together in the singing
(Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Paul’s reference to “each one has a psalm” (1 Cor.
14:26 is a reference, not to solos, but most likely to inspired human
writers who provided the infant church with suitable psalms, hymns and
spiritual songs. No authority exists for solos and choirs in the assembly
(emphasis mine—RDB).[45]
In this essay, he attacks drama, the Lord’s Supper on other days than Sundays, and the dedication of babies. This dedication of babies is not the same as infant baptism. He also objects to female worship leaders who wait on the Lord’s Table, sings solos, direct choirs, read Scripture, and lead prayer.[46] What is Miller’s proof for rejecting solo singing, which, according to certain Christians, is a “commandment of men,” not a “commandment of God.” Miller refutes solo singing with the words “most likely,” and then assumes that the “most likely” had reference to “inspired human writers.” With the flick of a pen, Miller assigns the practices of generations to the trash heap of history. In his entire inferno against solo singing, he produces no concrete evidence to uphold his views. For one to be true to the text, one must interpret the text as it is given, not interpret with an unnatural meaning in order to make a text conform to the “traditions” of a self-styled ecclesiastical organization—his group—as the citadel of all truth.
The theme of the journal[47]
in which Miller’s article appeared is: “The Church at the Crossroads.” This
entire issue is dealing with what these men consider to be the “commandments of
men.” In fact, two of the last four authors in this special issue make
reference to Jesus’ encounter with the religious leaders.[48] All of the articles in this special issue
are peppered with Scripture. But just simply citing the Word of God does not,
in and of itself, prove anything. One must rightly divide the Word of God.
Another author who espouses the same type of philosophy that Dave Miller champions is David Hester, minister for the Church of Christ.[49] O. B. Porterfield, editor of The Seibles Road Church of Christ Bulletin, published an article by Hester in which Hester bemoans the fairness of a religious journal called Ensign, published by Pat Kilpatrick in Huntsville, AL.[50] To illustrate the chicanery of Scripture citations without reference to context can be found in Hester’s objection to my essay on Romans 16:17.[51] He responded to my article and then I responded to his article, but in his final response, he replied with a silly argument, apparently without thinking about what he was saying, by grasping for a straw to maintain his sectarian position on Romans 16:17. Listen to Hester as he sets forth an argument that is as full of holes as is a sieve:
Romans 16:17-18 is still in our Bibles, and will be until the Lord comes again. We need to read it, and heed it. As a Gospel preacher, I will give an account of what I have preached at the day of judgment. I will also give an account of whether I have been faithful in striving for unity, and not division.[52]
My essay on Romans 16:17 that he objects to so strenuously never
denies that Romans
16:17-18 is a part of God’s Holy Word. Yes, in the words of
Hester, it will continue to be there “until the Lord comes again.” But that is
not the issue. The question is whether Christians, within certain sectarian
groups within the Churches of Christ, have interpreted this passage in light of
its context? Hester seems to think that just surface reading is all that is
necessary for a correct understanding of the Word. Does one need to examine the
intent of the author? The author may say one thing and mean something else. For
instance, one may read from this same letter about kissing: “Greet one
another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ send greetings” (Romans 16:16).
Does this Scripture need interpretation? Does Hester demand this act of kissing
as a part of the Christian community today? Yes, it is in the Bible and will
continue to be in the Bible until Jesus comes. For one to simply cite a
Scripture does not tell the whole story. For example, consider the following
Scriptures:
|
Matthew 5:39 |
Matthew 5:42 |
|
But I tell you, Do not resist an evil
person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other
also. |
Give to the one who asks you, and do
not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. |
|
John 13:12-17 |
1 Corinthians 16:20 |
|
When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and
returned to his place. “Do you
understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. 13 “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that
is what I am. 14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have
washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. 15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done
for you. 16 I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his
master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17 Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you
do them. |
All the brothers here send you greetings. |
Yes, Matthew 5:39
is in the Bible, but does Jesus say that if one hits you in the head with a
baseball bat—the left side—and you survive, then you are to stand up and let
him/her have one more shot? The answer is no! It is also true that Matthew 5:42
is in the Bible, but does Jesus say that one cannot refuse someone if he/she
wishes to borrow money? Again, one can say that John 13:15 is in the
Bible, but does Jesus mean that Christians must continue to wash the feet of
His saints? Once again, one can say that 1 Corinthians 16:20 is
also in the Bible, but does Paul mean that Christians must go around kissing
one another today?
Before leaving Hester’s illogical
mind, perhaps, another illustration will demonstrate the ridiculousness of his
argument in which he seeks to do away with my arguments according to the
context. For example, the Temptation of Jesus in the wilderness is a classic
example to refute the irrational argument of Hester. Satan confronted Jesus
with citations from Scripture, but Jesus corrected Satan’s attempt to nullify
one Scripture with another Scripture. Satan says:
6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written: ”‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone’” (Matthew 4:6).
Satan cited Psalms 91:11-12 to give validity to his request. But, on the other hand, Jesus also responded by citing Scripture: “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test’ (Matthew 4:7). Jesus cited Deuteronomy 6:16 to counter act the request of Satan. But one can almost hear the conversation between Jesus and Satan now—Satan says, “Well, Jesus, Psalms 91:11-12 is still in the Bible and will continue to be there until the end of the ages.” If Satan had followed the logic of Hester, then this logic would have been the proper response. It is not uncommon for many Christians to commit the same fallacy as Satan did in the citation of Scripture. It is not sufficient to just quote a passage, but one must seek to understand the intent of the author, not what the interpreter wishes him to say.
On the one hand, it is not uncommon for many individuals to fail to ask what a certain text means. On the other hand, what many Christians are concerned about is, How do I answer my opposition? Why do people often times find things that are not in the text? Perhaps, this finding is simply “monkey-see-monkey-do” mentality. One must always be conscious that he/she does not have a mechanistic or tape-recorder mentality. It is because of this tape-recorder mentality that even the Promise Keepers are included in the “commandments of men.” For example, Jodie Boren, one of the writers for Seibles Road Church of Christ Bulletin, cites Matthew 15:9 to give credence to his complaints against many within the Churches of Christ that are accepting the “unity in diversity” concept among the promise keepers.[53]
There are approximately twenty-five or more divisions just within the Churches of Christ. Each fellowship considers itself the “true church.” Thus, whatever one particular church believes, then if another church does not agree with its oddities in interpretation, then that fellowship is following the “commandments of men,” not the commandments of God. Each one wants to assign the word hypocrite to any and all dissents. But in the light of the context, from which censure is drawn, one must examine carefully to determine the mind-set of the religious leaders in their attempt to circumvent the fifth commandment of God for the sake of their traditions. The subject of “corban” entered this picture of condemnation of the part of Jesus.
The religious leaders used “corban” as
justification for setting aside God’s fifth commandment in the Decalogue. As
noted above, there is a contrast between the “traditions of the elders” and the
“commandments of God.” Jesus accuses the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law
for setting aside the instructions of God toward one’s parents in order to
uphold the oral traditions of men. In this encounter, Jesus calls attention to
the fifth Commandment, which reads: “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the
land the LORD your God is giving you” (Exodus 20:12). But the
hairsplitting champions of orthodoxy sought to circumvent the legislation of
God found in Exodus through their oral traditions. Their method in
accomplishing this negation of God’s Commandment was extremely crafty. In fact, Mark’s Gospel, in revealing this
encounter, says: “How ingeniously you get round the commandment of God in order
to preserve your own tradition!” (Mark 7:9).[54]
How did the religious leaders get around this Commandment of God? Well, the
teachers of the Law appealed to the “Corban Vow” to justify their actions for
their total disregard for their financial obligation toward their parents.
Listen once more to Jesus’ response to their flagrant violation of this sacred
Commandment:
11 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother:
‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a
gift devoted to God), 12
then
you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify
the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many
things like that” (7:11-13).
What does Corban mean? Corban can mean that which is dedicated to God. The religious leaders manipulated the teachings of God through the word corban. The English word corban is a transliteration of the Greek word korba'n (korban). And the Greek word is a transliteration of the Hebrew word /B*r+q* (q(rb*n), which means “gift” in both languages. Mark translates the word korban as gift (dw'ron, dwron). Alan McNeile points out that “Koban” . . . that which is brought near as an offering . . . and frequently in the Targums[55], is not transliterated in the LXX,[56] but rendered dw'ron, dwron.”[57] This concept of “gift” is fully worked out by William Hendriksen:
The Pharisees and scribes were telling the children that there was a way to get around the heavy burden of having to bestow honor upon their parents by supporting them. If either father or mother, noticing that a son had something which was needed by the parent, asked for it, all that was necessary was for this son to say, “It’s dwran (a gift)” or “q(rb*n (an offering),” Mark 7:11. Either way, whether the son uses the Greek word dwran or the Hebrew q(rb*n, he is really saying, “It is consecrated to God,” and by making this assertion or exclamation he, according to Pharisaic teaching based on tradition, had released himself from the obligation of honoring his parents—here “father” as also representing the mother—by helping them in their particular need.[58]
The religious leaders could take a scribal regulation to wipe out one of the Ten Commandments. Even today, a cursory glance of the religious journals within the Churches of Christ reveals how the traditions of bishop editors, powerful preachers, and domineering elders have made annulled, through centuries of fossilized traditions. Paul addresses the spirit of toleration in his epistles to Rome and Corinth. For example, Romans 14 and 15 and 1 Corinthians 8 are made null and void through the careless treatment of Matthew 15:9. The phrase “commandments of men” would be more applicable to Roy Lanier, Homer King, Dave Miller, David Hester, and O. B. Porterfield than to the individuals they condemned with their citation from Matthew 15:9. These Scriptures (Romans 14 & 15, 1 Corinthians 8) are canceled through the careless treatment of Matthew 15:9. The following chart is given in order to facilitate the ease of identification of Paul’s instructions to Rome and Corinth.
BOOK OF ROMANS
|
|
Romans 14:1 |
Romans 14:4 |
|
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. |
Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. |
Romans 14:5 |
Romans 14:19 |
|
One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. |
Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. |
Romans 15:1 |
Romans 15:7 |
|
We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. |
Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God. |
BOOK OF FIRST CORINTHIANS
|
|
1 Corinthians 8:1-3 |
1 Corinthians 8:4-7 |
|
Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. 2 The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. 3 But the man who loves God is known by God. |
So then, about eating food
sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and
that there is no God but one. 5 For
even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed
there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from
whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus
Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. 7 But not everyone knows this. |
1 Corinthians 8:9-11 |
1 Corinthians 8:12-13 |
|
Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, won’t he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. |
When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall. |
Many well-meaning Christians violate
these admonitions from the Holy Spirit. Christians circumvent these
instructions through advancing the notion that perfect vision is required
before one can extend the right hand of fellowship. But this practice of 20/20
vision did not exist in the first century church and neither does it exist
today. Individuals are to receive others in the same way that the Lord has
received them to the glory of God. How has God received His people today? Is it
not with “warts and all”? Does not God receive individuals with imperfection in
their knowledge as well as shortcomings in their lives?[59]
Jesus, too, dealt with “dullness” in understanding among His disciples. For
instance, on one occasion, Jesus says to the apostles,
“Are you still
so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17 “Don’t
you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of
the body? 18 But the things
that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’
19 For out of the heart come
evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony,
slander. 20 These are what
make a man ‘unclean’; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him
‘unclean’” (Matthew 15:16-20)
On
another occasion concerning bread, Jesus again calls attention to their lack of
understanding the obvious:
5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread. 6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.” 8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? 9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matthew 16:5-12).
Are Christians today in fellowship
with Christians in error? All Christians are in error on some point. No one has
20/20 vision. Is truth true? Is error error? Yes! But one must keep in mind
that even though all truth is true, nevertheless, all truth is not essential to
one’s salvation, if so, then no one could be saved. What about error? All error
is error, but not all error will condemn one’s soul, if so, then no one could
be saved. The community of God is fractured and splintered over something that
the Bible is totally silent about, namely, a worship service with its five
ritualistic acts performed in a certain manner. As a young preacher boy, my
uncle—E.H. Miller—taught me that the commandments of men had to do with the
following:
One could add many other items to the above list; it all depends on which group that one meets with today as to what constitutes the “commandments of men.” William Barclay captures the very heart of the matter when he writes: “They had come to prefer their own man-made ingenuities to the great simplicities of the Law of God.”[60] Again, Barclay paints a rather dismal picture of the religious leaders’ concept of worship:
To the Scribes and Pharisees worship was ritual, ceremonial law; to Jesus worship was the clean heart and the loving life. Here is the clash. And that clash still exists. What is worship? Even today there are many who would say that worship is not worship unless it is carried out by a priest ordained in a certain succession, in a building consecrated in a certain way, and from a liturgy laid down by a certain Church. And all these things are externals.
One of the greatest definitions of worship ever laid down was laid down by William Temple: “To worship is to quicken the conscience by the holiness of God, to feed the mind with the truth of God, to purge the imagination by the beauty of God, to open the heart to the love of God, to devote the will to the purpose of God.” We must have a care lest we stand aghast at the apparent blindness of the Scribes and the Pharisees, lest we are shocked by their insistence on outward ceremonial, and at the same time be ourselves guilty of the same fault in our own way. Religion can never be founded on any ceremonies or ritual; religion must always be founded on personal relationships between man and God.[61]
The Churches of Christ today are also divided over ritual ceremony, namely, five-acts.[62] Even today, it appears, so it seems to me, that Christians are more concerned over ritual than they are over right ethical conduct. Jesus’ citation of Isaiah (739 BCE) is just as apropos today as it was seventeen hundred years ago. Again, one must go back to the context of Mark 7:1-7 to gain the crux of what the controversy was all about. Listen once more to Jesus as he issues His stinging rebuke:
He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written”: ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 7 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ 8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men” (