"Rightly dividing the word of truth"

It’s been suggested that the kind of worship outlined in I Corinthians 14:26ff was only directed to the church in Corinth in Paul's time. But this teaching about the proper use of prophecy in worship ends with the words “as in all the churches of the saints.” If these teachings apply to how “all the churches of the saints” use prophecy in worship, clearly all the churches worship this way.

The implication is that all the churches of the saints should worship this way. Paul's opening words in v. 26 flatly state "When you assemble," this is how you worship. I take his words there as prescriptive, with a descriptive example.

I also take it as a given of Biblical teaching that, if we truly believe the Bible is God's written word to man, it applies to us. This is the absolute mindset of the Bible, affirmed in numerous scriptures. Several which stress the universal applicability to believers of scriptural teachings are found in I Corinthians. That's probably significant, since the teachings of I Corinthians (particularly chapters 12 and 14) are the primary ones which some want to disallow.

In I Corinthians 4:17, Paul says he sent Timothy to them “…to remind you of my ways which are in Christ, just as I teach everywhere in every church.”

All should remain in the circumstances where God called them (specifically marriage), he says in I Corinthians 7:17, “And so I direct in all the churches.”

Women should cover their heads when praying or prophecying, I Corinthians 11:16: “…we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God.”

Rather than tailoring his message to the Corinthians and their church, Paul seems to go out of his way to stress that his teachings to them are the same he gives in all the churches. The criteria he holds before them is the Godly practices of all the churches.

We know Paul’s letters to the Corinthians addressed specific problems in that church, in their cultural context, at that time. We could say the same about (for example) the Old Testament prophecies God directed to the Jews, and their culture, in their time. The problems God addresses in those portions of scripture may or may not be present in current-day believers, or our culture, or our time. But I doubt the nature of the human spirit, its temptations and sins, have changed since those scriptures were written.

There’s an argument to be made that, regards human cultural and temporal situations, God has sometimes been merciful to “wink” for a time at mens’ ignorant unbelief (Acts 17:30). Jesus said God let some religious traditions grow up because of our “hardness of heart” (Matthew 19:8). But note that in both cases, these words were followed by a call to repent.

We also know that Paul carefully distinguishes between what he "received of the Lord" and what is his own opinion. In I Corinthians 7:12, for example, he says, "But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not leave her." Similarly, in v. 25 of that same chapter, he writes, "Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who has had mercy shown on him by the Lord to be trustworthy."

Taking all of that into account, the big question here is what principle we will choose to bring to understanding scripture. I'd expect any believing Christian would start from the premise that scripture's words are God’s word to us, and apply to us.

God doesn’t change. It’s possible He may mercifully temper His words to the cultural or temporal (mis-) understanding of specific people He’s addressing. The teaching that women should cover their heads when praying or prophecying may indeed be such a case, specifically tailored to the cultural understanding of Christians in First Century Corinth. But deeming we may set aside His teachings for any reason should be approached with fearful and absolute humility, and only under the Spirit's express leading.

The typical argument for what some call "cessationism" is usually predicated instead on some element of pride. It seems extremely presumptuous to set aside scripture's teaching, for example, on the supposition that our Twentifirst Century understanding grounded in American culture is superior to that of First Century Corinthians for interpreting God's intent. Making such an argument probably evidences that it is not of God: God is fiercely opposed to the proud. (James 4:6 and elsewhere.)

Perhaps some incidental scriptural teachings may be less than universal and absolute commands for all times and places. I doubt that God's endowing His followers with charismata to edify (build up) the Church is ever incidental. Nor is scripture's instruction about Spiritual gifts' use in worship. I Corinthian 14's portrayal of the Spirit operating in worship through His gifts seems rather to correlate scripturally with what Jesus commends as "worship in Spirit and in truth." (John 4:23-24)

If we're unsure whether a Biblical teaching is incidental, and applicable or inapplicable, we probably need to be wise as well as humble. On any such question, simple wisdom would be to err on the side of being scrupulously obedient to God’s teaching, rather than running the risk of offending and disobeying The King. Especially is that true when the teaching is based specifically in God’s unchanging Nature. That’s the case in I Corinthians 14:33, where prophecy’s use in worship is governed by the fact that “…God is…a God of…peace.”

But the bottom line is not yet.

After all these considerations weighing against a "cessationist" interpretive-system, the fact is that there's no real scriptural evidence for it. God can be expected to do things we don't expect: new things that we find hard to believe, even when He tells us. (Habbakuk 1:5) But in His mercy we CAN expect Him to tell us, in an unmistakable way, when He is pleased to guide us into His new way. Jesus is THE prime example of His setting forth His new Way in the full Blaze of His Glory.

In the 40+ years I've been a Christian, the "cessationist" theorists have never been able to present a scriptural basis for their contention that, after scripture was completed, God's new way is to remove Spiritual gifts and ministries from the Church, or that God intends we worship without them.

That's the bottom line for me. I consider it the absolute criteria on which any believing Christian should weigh any interpretive theory.

Amen.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Interestingly...I don't believe in "coincidences"...I hadn't heard anything about John MacArthur's new "cessationist" volume, in which he removes all charismatics' names from the Lamb's Book of Life, until last week. At the time, I was already working through a scriptural consideration of the proposition put forth in our Sunday School class the preceding week, that I Corinthians 14's teachings about gifts and worship don't apply to Christians today.

I've heard that proposition ever since I became a Christian over 40 years ago, and it's never seemed to me to hold up to honest scriptural scrutiny. But I wanted to re-check my thinking against scripture, and bring to class the scriptures that seem relevant.

At the start of Sunday School yesterday, I gave a very abbreviated summary of the above post. Simply saying that it was central to how we will interpret the Bible, I quoted the four scriptures in I Corinthians (above) against the idea that its teachings were applicable only to First Century Corinthians. (I consciously avoided saying that its teachings apply to us: it's God's part to convince any hearts that will receive His words.)

The responses were illuminating, as to what "spiritual strongholds" exist among everyday evangelicals.

I was told first that what I said was only my opinion. (That those scriptures are relevant, I presume.)

Someone else said that was the problem with our Sunday School class, that it became a forum for people's opinions and got away from what the Bible says. (!!)

(These reactions were from two older sisters who primarily offer opinions in class, often opinions based on the week's news-stories.)

The first added that it was legalism to teach that you're not a Christian unless you follow certain rules.

Someone else suggested that we should use an approved study-guide, preferably from our denomination, to keep from being led by opinion.

I asked if that isn't just following someone else' opinion ? Yes, she said, but they're trained in theology and interpretation. I said the first rule of Bible interpretation is that "scripture interprets scripture;" and we can all do that by reading the cross-referenced scriptures on any verse we're trying to understand. She said her Bible doesn't have cross-references.

It all struck me as a bit surreal. And I couldn't help thinking that sometimes the "sweet old ladies" of the congregation can be the most deep-dyed rebels. LOL.