by Sam Waldron | Jun 15, 2011 | Family-Integrated Church
The Family-Integrated Church movement condemns the idea of age-segregated Sunday School classes. They do this in the context usually of a strong commitment to home-schooling. This raises the suspicion that they are against anyone teaching children except their parents or at least with their parents present.
To be fair I do not think this is the position of the more moderate. A Weed in the Church actually admits that parents may delegate the actual teaching of children to others, though not the primary responsibility for it. (61-65) This is true according to the same source both as to the religious instruction and general education of children and true even when their parents are not present. I have pointed out that this does not seem altogether consistent or coherent with the rejection of age-segregated Sunday Schools or youth meetings.
There is some reason, of course, to think that these concessions by the more moderate family-integrated folks to some kind of parentally delegated and age-appropriate instruction in the absence of parents is either highly qualified or somewhat reluctant. It seems good, therefore, to bring up and consider the instances of Samuel (1 Samuel 1-12), Jesus (Luke 2), and Paul (Acts 22). Each is a biblical example of a child who was instructed by religious teachers other than and in the absence of their parents.
With regard to these examples I think we must both remember and grant that they are descriptive passages and not necessarily normative in force. That is, they simply record what happened without passing judgment on what happened and without overtly presenting what happened as normative. The fact that some act is recorded in the Bible does not mean necessarily that is presented to us as a model for how we should act. The whole Book of Judges, for instance, is full of descriptions of God’s people doing things that should not be normative for us.
But while granting that the passages in question are generally descriptive in character and that we must be really careful about deducing our duty from such passages, I believe there are things to be learned relative to the claims of the Family-Integrated Church movement. I want to show why this is the case in my next post.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Richard Barcellos | Jun 9, 2011 | Biblical Theology, Book Reviews, Hermeneutics, New Testament, Old Testament, Systematic Theology
Tom Wells’ book on the Sabbath: Chapter Three (V)
Conclusion: Gospel Texts on Sabbath-Keeping
A detailed examination of all the passages in the Gospels where Christ discusses the issue of the Sabbath will show that he never predicted its abolition, nor did he ever profane it. If fact, he could not profane it, nor advocate its profanation by others, without sinning. He was born under the law, not to profane it, but to keep it (Gal. 4:5). If Christ violated the Sabbath, then he sinned and would not be a suitable Savior for others. Instead, he advocated works of necessity (Matt. 12:1-8; Mk. 2:23-28; Lk. 6:1-5), mercy (Matt. 12:9-14; Mk. 3:1-6; Lk. 4:31-41; 6:6-11; 13:10-17; 14:1-6; Jn. 5:8-10; 7:23; 9:13-16), and piety (Matt. 12:9; Mk. 6:2; Lk. 4:16; 6:6; Jn. 7:22-23) on the Sabbath by his teaching and example. He never violated it, advocated its violation by others, or prophesied its soon demise. In fact, Mk. 2:27-28 prophesies the perpetuity of the Sabbath under his lordship as Son of Man.
Both Matt. 12:1-14 and Mk. 2:27-28 contain transcovenantal principles relating to the Sabbath. Works of mercy and necessity are lawful on the Sabbath, linking Jesus’ teaching with revelation given prior to his earthly ministry (i.e., the OT). Jesus as Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath, linking the Sabbath and its Lord with future revelation (i.e., the NT). Jesus’ teaching on the Sabbath leaves us with the expectation that he will execute his lordship over the Sabbath in the future, during the inter-advental days of the new covenant. His teaching on the Sabbath is related to antecedent revelation (explicitly) and subsequent revelation (implicitly). It establishes a basis for its basic ethical perpetuity and yet in such a way as to expect changes in application due to the redemptive-historical shift that takes place due to his entrance into glory (i.e., resurrection/ascension).
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by Sam Waldron | Jun 8, 2011 | Family-Integrated Church
Both Scott Brown and Voddie Baucham incorporate a rejection of nurseries for children during church services into their program of family-integrated ministry in the church. Voddie remarks: “I believe one of the greatest crutches in the church is the nursery. Parents who have neglected to train their children have very little encouragement to do so when there is a place to hide them. The father who should be up in arms by the time he gets home from church because of the embarrassment to which his child has subjected him ends up going with a clear conscience while the nursery worker takes a handful of aspirin.” (145) Scott counsels: “Bring the children into the worship service; eliminate youth programs; cancel Sunday School, children’s church, and the nursery.” (258).
Let me make clear what I am and am not arguing for in this blog post. I am arguing that having nurseries for babies during the worship of the church is permissible. I am not arguing that it is mandatory. I do believe that it is prudent and wise, but that is quite a different thing than saying that it is biblically commanded. I know of no biblical command to have nurseries.
As I noted last time, that last admission of mine is fatal for me from Scott’s perspective. One needs warrant from Scripture to have nurseries. Otherwise one violates the regulative principle. In that blog I argued in response to this use of the regulative principle that the regulative principle only applies to the parts or elements of the church’s worship and not its circumstances. This is the explicit teaching of the 1689 Baptist Confession. Nurseries in my view are not an element of worship, but quite obviously, I think, a circumstance of the church’s worship “common to human actions and societies.”
A Weed in the Church also argues that there is biblical evidence for bringing children into the worship of the church. I agree that such evidence exists (Neh. 8:2; Eph. 6:1; Col. 3:20). All who could understand came to the meeting in Nehemiah 8. Children are addressed in Paul’s letters to the Ephesians and Colossians. Thus, it is clear that children who could understand were present. I grant that they should be present in the worship of the church.
But this does not prove that children too young to understand and too young to be taught not to be a disruption to the ministry of the Word should be present. In fact, the priority of the ministry of the Word actually suggests that such children should be removed from the meeting of the church lest they be a tool of the devil to distract people from the ministry of the Word.
Let me also note that A Weed in the Church cites Jeremy Walker (a contemporary Reformed Baptist) and Matthew Henry (the well-known Puritan) in support of his anti-nursery thesis. Neither the quotation from Jeremy Walker (165) nor the one from Matthew Henry (166-67) necessarily or clearly support Scott’s argument. The one from Walker actually appears to contradict it. (He speaks of the “intelligent presence” of children.)
A Weed in the Church attempts to argue that even babies in arms should be brought to church from Joel 2:15-16: “Blow a trumpet in Zion, Consecrate a fast, proclaim a solemn assembly, Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, Assemble the elders, Gather the children and the nursing infants. Let the bridegroom come out of his room And the bride out of her bridal chamber.” A lengthy exegesis of this passage is not necessary to see that that this is no ordinary solemn assembly. The occasion is one of the judgment of the locust plague and, hence, unusual mourning, a fast, and even the suspension of normal wedding activities is commanded.
All of this does not amount to a command to have nurseries. But let me say that having nurseries qualifies (at least in many cases) as what the Confessions calls a circumstance of corporate worship dictated by “the light of nature and Christian prudence.” One of my sons is an officer in the Air Force. On the basis of some counsel he and his wife visited a Reformed church near the base where they were stationed. At the time they had an infant (our grandson) who less than 6 months old. He was not one of those quiet babies! Nor was he ready to be trained to sit still and quiet in church. While I suspect that this church was influenced by the kind of polemic against nurseries launched by Scott and Voddie, I do not know for sure. Whatever the case may be, this church provided no nursery services for such infants. While my children might have seriously considered this church on other grounds, the lack of a nursery would have meant that they could never worship together as a family. They felt it could not be an option for them for this reason.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Richard Barcellos | Jun 8, 2011 | Biblical Theology, Book Reviews, Hermeneutics, New Testament, Old Testament, Systematic Theology
Tom Wells’ book on the Sabbath: Chapter Three (IV)
Mark 2:23-28 narrates another incident between Jesus and his disciples and the Pharisees. Jesus was “passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain” (Mk. 2:23). The Pharisees said, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” (Mk. 2:24). This is the regulating question Jesus answers in this passage. According to the Pharisees’ understanding, Christ’s disciples were violating the law of God by doing that which was, in their words, “not lawful on the Sabbath” (Mk. 2:24). Christ, as in Matt. 12:3-4, brings up the example of David and his companions entering the house of God and doing that “which [was] not lawful…” (Mk. 2:26). In Matt. 12:7, he pronounced his disciples innocent. In Matt. 12:12, Jesus said, “So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” Though he does not pronounce his disciples innocent in Mark 2, he uses David and his companions as an example of someone in Scripture doing a similar thing his disciples were doing. It seems obvious that if his disciples were innocent in one text (Matt. 12), they are innocent in another (Mk. 2).[1] But how were they innocent? Did they, in fact, do that which was not lawful on the Sabbath? Obviously, Jesus did not think so in Matthew 12 or here. In Jesus’ mind, they did that which was lawful. It was lawful because God desires compassion or mercy over sacrifice (cf. Matt. 12:7). In other words, Jesus makes a distinction between aspects of the Old Testament’s laws. Mercy overrules the positive aspects of the Sabbath under the old covenant.[2]
In Mk. 2:27, Jesus does as Paul and Moses do elsewhere. He draws a principle from creation that is germane to mankind (cf. Exod. 20:8-11 and 1 Tim. 2:12-13). Mark 2:27-28 says, “And He said to them, ‘The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath.’” First, note that both man and Sabbath are said to be made. The verb used by Mark in v. 27, evge,neto (“made”), comes from gi,nomai, which means ‘to become’ or ‘to be.’ It is the same verb used in Jn. 1:3, where it is translated “made.” There it refers to the creation of all things through the Word. What Jesus is saying in Mk. 2:27 is that, in the past, both man and the Sabbath came into being (i.e., ‘were made’) and that coming into being is described by one verb. This leads us to the conclusion that man and Sabbath were made at the same time. It would be quite clumsy to separate the making of man and the making of the Sabbath by hundreds and maybe even thousands of years by placing the Sabbath’s birth after Israel’s deliverance from Egypt in Exod. 16 or 20. Since we know that man was created (i.e., ‘came into being’) according to Gen. 1 and 2 in the Garden of Eden, Christ would have us to conclude that the Sabbath, as he refers to it here, was made at the same time and in the same place (cf. Exod. 20:11). This relates Christ’s teaching on the Sabbath with previous revelation.
Second, both Sabbath and man are singular and articular in the Greek text (To. sa,bbaton… to.n a;nqrwpon [“the Sabbath…the man”]). Both words occur twice in this verse and both words are preceded by an article each time. This is one way to emphasize both Sabbath and man. Jesus did not say “The Sabbath was made for the Jews” or “the Sabbaths[3] were made for the Jews.” He said “the Sabbath” was made for “the man.” “The man” refers either to Adam as the head of the human race or mankind. Either way, it is clear that Christ goes back to the creation account and sees both man and the Sabbath being made. In context, Christ not only corrects the Pharisees for misunderstanding the Sabbath (Mk. 2:23-24), he, in effect, rebukes their narrow-minded and unbiblical approach to this issue. Jesus teaches us that the Sabbath is not unique to the Jews. God caused it to come into being as he caused Adam and all mankind to come into being for his glory and their good. The Sabbath is as old as man, according to Christ, not merely as old as the Jews. Again, this relates Christ’s teaching with previous revelation.
Third, the Sabbath is said to have been “made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” Two observations are worthy to consider. First, “[t]he Sabbath was made for man.” It was not made for God. God does not need a Sabbath. We do. It was made by God for our good. Second, man was not made “for the Sabbath.” Man existed first. His needs existed before the Sabbath did. The Sabbath came into being to serve man’s needs to be like God and to enjoy him. We don’t serve the Sabbath, it serves us so we can serve God better. Again, this relates Christ’s teaching with previous revelation.
Fourth, Christ puts his stamp of Messianic lordship on the Sabbath that was made at creation. “Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath” (Mk. 2:28). This provides us with the expectation that the Sabbath will abide under his lordship and will take on characteristics appropriate to this lordship under the new covenant (cf. Rev. 1:10). John Murray comments:
What the Lord is affirming is that the Sabbath has its place within the sphere of his messianic lordship and that he exercises lordship over the Sabbath because the Sabbath was made for man. Since he is Lord of the Sabbath it is his to guard it against those distortions and perversions with which Pharisaism had surrounded it and by which its truly beneficent purpose has been defeated. But he is also its Lord to guard and vindicate its permanent place within that messianic lordship which he exercises over all things–he is Lord of the Sabbath, too. And he is Lord of it, not for the purpose of depriving men of that inestimable benefit which the Sabbath bestows, but for the purpose of bringing to the fullest realization on behalf of men that beneficent design for which the Sabbath was instituted. If the Sabbath was made for man, and if Jesus is the Son of man to save man, surely the lordship which he exercises to that end is not to deprive man of that which was made for his good, but to seal to man that which the Sabbath institution involves. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath–we dare not tamper with his authority and we dare not misconstrue the intent of his words.[4]
It is clear from the text in Daniel, where the phrase “Son of Man” comes from, that it refers to Christ in the posture of enthronement, immediately following his ascension into glory and is a title appropriate for him during the days in which he is given a kingdom and the nations become his.
I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed. (Dan. 7:13-14)
In other words, Christ administrates the Sabbath as the Son of Man during the whole interadvental period–the days of the new covenant. This relates Chris’s teaching on the Sabbath with both previous and future revelation. Christ’s lordship over the Sabbath also implies Christ’s deity. The Sabbath is God’s (Isa. 56:4; 58:13). Since Christ is Lord of the Sabbath as Son of Man and since this title is his during the inter-advental days of the new covenant, then we should not be shocked if the Sabbath bears unique characteristics of his lordship under the new covenant. Patrick Fairbairn says:
He is Lord of the Sabbath, and, as such, has a right to order everything concerning it, so as to make it, in the fullest sense, a day of blessing for man–a right, therefore, if He should see fit, to transfer its observance from the last day of the week to the first, that it might be associated with the consummation of His redemptive work, and to make it, in accordance with the impulsive life and energy thereby brought in, more than in the past, a day of active and hallowed employment for the good of men.[5]
Jesus (Matt. 19:4-5 [and Mk. 2:27-28]), Paul (1 Tim. 2:12-13), and Moses (Exod. 20:11) argue in similar fashion. Each of them goes back to the creation account for the basis of ethics in terms of marriage, divorce, male/female roles in the church, and Sabbath. They all apply the same reasoning, though to different issues. If the basis for their argument is creation, and if creation transcends covenants and cultures, how can we not conclude that what they are arguing for applies to all men at all times, though dependant upon revelation from God in terms of specific application at any given point in redemptive history? In other words, though the application may vary due to various redemptive-historical situations (i.e., divorce permitted due to the entrance of sin, 7th day Sabbath to 1st day Sabbath/Lord’s Day, etc.), the principle itself stands. And the reason why it stands is due to the order and ethical implications of creation drawn out by the Bible itself.
If the principle applies to marriage, divorce, and male/female roles in the church, then doesn’t it still apply to the Sabbath as well? If it does not apply to the Sabbath, upon what grounds is the principle dismissed? If one says, “The Sabbath was an ordinance for the Jews only. It was theirs’ as God’s old covenant people to apply to their culture alone in the Promised Land,” then couldn’t someone argue the same for male/female roles in the church? They could say, “Paul was dealing with a culture-relative issue. His reasoning applied to that culture alone. Women, therefore, may have authority over men in the church and may teach and preach to them. Women may be pastors.” Some in our day argue this way. But when the Bible bases ethics upon creation, the principle applies to all cultures at all times. And until this age gives way to the fullness of the age to come, creation-based ethics (i.e., creation ordinances) are moral laws for all men.
[1] If Matthew utilized Mark, it could be that he filled out the incident for his own purposes. If Mark used Matthew, it could be that he trimmed the incident because he knew Matthew had dealt with it in detail. If the Gospel writers wrote independent of each other based on eye-witness accounts, each one wrote what they did for authorial purposes. Either way, both texts were inspired by God and can and ought to be used to interpret each other.
[2] See the Second London Baptist Confession, 22:7, where it acknowledges that the Sabbath is “a positive moral, and perpetual commandment…” I take this to mean that the Sabbath can and does take upon itself temporary aspects (i.e., positive laws) during the history of redemption, which can and do change, yet its essence is moral or perpetual. This means that its positive aspects may give way to the moral or perpetual aspects of God’s law.
[3] The Jews under the old covenant had both a weekly Sabbath and other non-weekly Sabbaths.
[4] John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. I (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1976), 208.
[5] Fairbairn, Revelation of Law, 238.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
