Paul Preached Unto Them
by Steve Atkerson, Beresford Job
Today most church sermons, messages, or preaching consists of monologue. But the apostle Paul's preaching style at Troas involved interactive dialogue.
Part One
— Beresford Job
For over one thousand years Christian church practice has been largely based on sources other than the Word of God. This has left us with a legacy that desperately needs to be corrected. Part of that legacy is that we have departed quite drastically from the way Bible teaching and corporate instruction was done in the early church. By far the most serious departure in this regard is the virtually universal practice of focusing the gathering of the church on the Lord’s Day around preaching and teaching, usually by one person.
In the New Testament, however, we see something rather different. We find there churches meeting on Sundays, in people’s houses, and with a twofold purpose. First, they had completely open, participatory and spontaneous sharing together and worship which, by definition, wasn’t led from the front in any way. Second, they ate the Lord’s Supper together as their main meal of the day. Given such a set up, and it is indeed how the apostles universally set churches up to be like, then certain things would subsequently, and quite logically, find no place.
For instance, in such a set up there is not the slightest need for religious or sacred buildings. Hence it will come as no surprise that we find the churches in the New Testament meeting exclusively in people’s homes. Something else you won’t find in the New Testament either is a Sunday service, led from the front, with those attending sitting audience style in rows and participating only in singing and, maybe, a bit of open prayer and the like. Neither will you find in the New Testament anything that even faintly resembles a sermon. Such a practice would go completely against what the very essence of a church gathering on Sundays was originally seen to be. The apostles set churches up in such a way that when they came together on the Lord’s Day the rule was strictly, “each one has . . . for you may all prophesy one by one” (1Co 14:26, 31). They set churches up in such a way that would positively encourage all those gathered to participate, and therefore brought about a situation where the Lord would be free to move by His Spirit through each part of His body. Any idea of the Lord’s Day gathering of the church revolving around the ministry of any one individual flies completely in the face of scripture and contradicts it outright.
This is not to say, however, that there isn’t a place for the type of teaching amongst God’s people whereby one person predominates in giving it. The Lord does indeed provide people in churches who are gifted in this very thing, and the New Testament makes it clear that teaching is a calling and gift of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, in the church of which I am a part we meet for Bible Study on Tuesday evenings, and we work very hard at furthering our understanding of God‘s Word. But in the New Testament the coming together of a church on Sundays was not the time when such gifts were exercised in that particular way, and the push was always for mutual participation; for lots of people to share something, including a short teaching, rather than for one person to predominate or lead in any way.
And this helps us to at last take the emphasis away from leadership, and from our inclination to just revolve around those who are gifted in teaching and public speaking ability and to consequently make big men of them. It helps to keep us safe from the evil of the whole clergy/laity divide thing, and from the completely unbiblical two-tier system of leaders and led which creates hierarchy. Hierarchy is something no church should ever have, and the only hierarchy found in the pages of the New Testament, pertaining to church life, is simply Jesus and everyone else. Even elders - for that is what a biblically based church will either have or be moving towards, a plurality of co-equal, male elders who have been raised up from among those they serve - are strictly in the everyone else category.
Moreover, this biblical way of doing things creates a set up in which people feel free to question whatever is being taught in order to test and understand it more fully. It also makes those who teach realise that the onus is on them to do so in such a way as to persuade people that what they are saying is actually biblical. It helps minimise the danger of those who are taught being expected to just passively accept things because it’s what the leaders teach, or because of some daft idea of ‘accepted church policy’ or something. It brings about a situation wherein people are much more likely to actively and questioningly understand rather than merely passively accept things as being the case and just agree. It creates, in short, what many leaders in many churches fear most, people with open Bibles and free-thinking minds who don’t accept things merely on the authority of a leader’s say-so, but who question and challenge until they are persuaded that something is or isn’t biblical. It further releases the corporate insight and wisdom of all in the church, and engenders an atmosphere of humility and the willingness for everyone to learn from anyone. It recognises the vitally important fact that the Lord is in all His people, and can therefore speak through any of those in the church and not just some chosen and verbally gifted elite.
But I must deal now with what might, in some people’s minds, be perceived as a real and biblically-based objection to what I’m saying here: Paul’s preaching. Take a look at a particular Sunday that Paul the Apostle spent with the church in Troas : “On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight ” (Ac 20:7).
Here we have the believers in Troas coming together for their main weekly gathering, and we can note certain things. (By the way, no Bible scholar would disagree with any of the following observations I am going to make. They are a simple matter of textual fact.)
- The church is gathering on the first day of the week, on Sunday.
- They were gathering together in someone’s house.
- The Greek text here conveys that the main purpose given for their coming together was for the breaking of bread.
- The phrase breaking of breadrefers to eating a full meal, here the Lord’s Supper.
Now the thing I want to focus on here is that Paul “spoke to the people” and “kept on talking until midnight .” That certainly makes it sound as if Paul is doing the talking and that everyone else is just listening. So if that is the case then there isn’t much open, un-led participatory stuff going on here as we might expect to see, assuming of course that what I‘ve written so far isn‘t complete nonsense. But there’s worse to come, because in some translations of the Bible this verse actually reads, “Paul preached unto them . . . and continued his speech until midnight.”
That doesn’t just sound like a Sunday sermon, that sounds like the very mother and father of all Sunday sermons either before or since! Paul, if this verse is to believed, not only preached to the church, but continued to do so until midnight . What on earth can I say to that in the light of the burden of this article? Well, it’s actually very simple. The original Greek doesn’t say here quite what the English translation conveys. Luke doesn’t use any of the various Greek words for preach at all. He rather describes what Paul was doing here until midnight with the word dialogemai. And dialogemai, as any Greek scholar will tell you, means to converse, todiscuss, toreason or dispute with. It denotes a two-way verbal trafficking between different parties and is actually the Greek word from which we get the English word dialogue.
Preaching is a monologue, and in certain settings of church life that may well be fine. Midweek Bible studies, for example, may very well be conducted at times by one person doing a monologue followed by questions. But in the New Testament, when the Lord’s people come together on Sundays as a church, it’s strictly dialogue that goes on, and this is precisely what Paul is doing here. He is most certainly teaching the church, and it goes on most of the night because they wanted to learn all they could from him, but it was a discussion-type format and not a monologue of some kind. It was participatory and interactive, and therefore completely in keeping with the way the apostles set up Sunday gatherings of churches to be like. In short, Paul was simply conversing with them. It was a dialogue, and he and the assembled church were reasoning together. It was two-way mutual communication. It was question and answer, point and counterpoint, objection and explanation! Paul isn’t here standing on some raised platform with everyone sitting silently just listening to him speaking to them. No, he is rather sitting on the sofa in the lounge talking with them.
There is of course a time, as I have already said, for something of a more formal lecture type format, but even then let it be clear that whoever is teaching must be completely and fully open to questions concerning their subject matter. I don’t by that necessarily mean in the middle of the teaching, but when the speaker has finished then let the questions and comeback flow. Let it be clear as well that whoever does do teaching, and the more brothers amongst whom this task is shared out the better, is just one of the brothers, and is not special or spiritually elevated just because they are gifted in a particular way. (At our Tuesday night Bible Studies at the church of which I am a part we also do lots of discussion and interactive type teaching sessions as well, and use the lecture type format as just one of various approaches.)
Let me end by making clear that I am not in the slightest down playing Bible teaching in the life of Christian churches. Far from it! Indeed, none of us would be going on about any of these things in the first place were it not for the fact we are into good solid Bible teaching ourselves, and keen to both receive it and to pass it on to others. No, we are simply saying that we have got to start doing things biblically. We must in this, as with everything else, get back in line with what the Word of God teaches rather than just sticking with age-old, yet completely unbiblical, traditions.
Churches need ongoing teaching, of that there can be no doubt. But they need other things too! To do some biblical things at the expense of other equally biblical things is, believe me, a big mistake. The apostles expected that, when believers met in their respective churches on the Lord’s Day, it would be a case of, “When you come together each one has”(1Co 14:26 ). That, then, is the way it should be! Nothing more and nothing less!
Got it? Good! It’s pretty simple really, isn’t it? After all, whose ideas and way of doing things have got to be the best? Jesus and His apostles? Or someone else’s?
Part Two
— Jon Zens
In the past few months several people have asked me questions about the proper place of “Bible study” in the assembly. For those in traditional churches fulfilling the above verse translates into being faithful to come and hear a “sermon” every Sunday morning in a church building. Those who have felt led to pursue ekklesia in more informal settings usually have questions about how “teaching” fits into the new scheme of things. Not a few, in reacting to the previous centrality of the pulpit, are leery of being “taught” by anybody, or fear that one person will dominate. Some feel that body gatherings should focus on relational issues instead of studying the Bible. Others feel that there must be teaching every week, or the saints will dry up. What can we learn from the New Testament to put these various concerns in proper perspective?
After 3,000 people believed and were baptized, “they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship [koinonia], to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (Ac 2:42 ). We see here four central characteristics that marked the believers’ life together. The apostles were immediately involved in teaching the flock. So it is clear that teaching is very important in the ekklesia. But the teaching occurred in the setting of koinonia, eating and praying together.
Among the many gifts Christ gives to his people, some are gifted as teachers (Ep 4:11 ). James says, “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly” (3:1). Paul says, “if a person’s gift is teaching, let him teach” (Ro12:6-7). And in 1 Corinthians 12:28 -29 Paul underscores the fact that Christ never intended for everybody to have the same gifting by asking, “Are all teachers?” On the other hand, the writer to the Hebrews chides all the brethren for their lack of growth by saying, “though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again” (5:12). So while it is clear that only some are gifted as teachers, all of Christ’s people are to be “teachers” in the broad sense of contributing to the overall edification of the body according to their spiritual gifts.
Obviously, groups of believers will vary greatly in their giftedness, but if the Lord has brought them together, they can be sure that “in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be” (1Co12:18). Some assemblies will have several gifted at teaching, some will have one person, and others may feel that they have none. The central thing to keep in mind is that all believers have the Holy Spirit (the “anointing”) and are capable of some level of sharing Christ, of manifesting discernment, of caring for one another, and of understanding the Scriptures. When they come together in His name, they have every reason to expect Christ’s presence (Mt 18:20 ). In a body meeting, each person present has the responsibility to make sure they do not dominate and thereby stifle others. If there are multiple teachers, none should dominate. If there appears to be only one teacher, care should be taken that that gift should not end up being in the limelight. If there appear to be none gifted as teachers, then the body must work hard at trusting the Lord for edifying multiple participation. We are so used to the artificial thinking that assumes that teachers must have a background in a Bible School or seminary. This is not a Scriptural mindset. We must neither succumb to the cult of the expert, nor mute any eminent gifts in the body.
In Acts 20:7 we are specifically told that the purpose of the saints’ gathering was to “break bread,” not to hear teaching. However, in the course of that particular meeting – which was to be Paul’s last appearance in their city — the apostle “dialogued” with them for a long time. What Paul had to say was the meat of the meeting, but it was not a monologue. It was discourse with interaction. This shows that while the raison d’etre of the meeting was to eat (the Lord’s Supper), it was still possible for teaching to take place.
The Corinthians evidently felt that everybody should speak in tongues. They were focusing on certain visible manifestations of the Spirit. Paul corrects this in 1 Corinthians 12-14. In chapter 14, he wants the spontaneity and multiple participation to continue, but in all of this he desires for prophecy to be central, and for everything to be done for edification. Prophecy by “all” results in strengthening, encouragement, comfort and instruction (14:3, 31). In verse 26, Paul mentions a few of many possible contributions that the saints can make to the meeting, and one of them is “a teaching.” So, just as we should not forbid tongues (if there is interpretation), neither should we forbid teaching!
One thing that would help assemblies in all these issues surrounding “teaching” is if they would learn how to study the Bible together with a view toward discerning the Lord’s mind and acting upon it. Since there is so much false teaching floating around, it is vital for the ekklesia to search the Scriptures to see what is actually so. For example, on a host of topics — prayer, angels, body-life, humility, and love — it is certainly possible for a group of believers to photocopy from a concordance or print out from a computer a selection of verses to go over together in discussion and prayer. In the early church apostolic epistles were read to the assembly. That is something congregations should do with regularity. It must be stressed that any handling of God’s word by an ekklesia should not be approached as a stale, intellectual, academic exercise. Our goal must be to exalt Jesus Christ together and obey what he reveals in his word.
Congregations will have their strengths and weaknesses. Some will be grounded in sound teaching, but weak in prayer. Some will excel in mutual caring, but be weak in some gospel truths. The general trend I have seen is that churches tend to be all doctrine with little body-life, or focused on subjective experience with little sound teaching. Why do we sever what God has joined together? We should strive to be caring, practical fellowships who, as Paul exhorted, wish to hold fast to healthy teaching. Therefore, brethren should always be evaluating their life together in light of a summary text like Acts 2:42 , and openly discuss areas they need to grow in.
James 1:19 exhorts all of us to be “quick to hear and slow to speak.” In any group of saints there will be those who tend to talk a lot, those who are reticent, and others inbetween. Those who are always ready to speak must be cautious and be sure they do not stifle the input of others. They must be careful not to dominate or to intimidate by a dogmatic tone that shuts down discussion. Those who are very hesitant to speak need an atmosphere of acceptance and love where they can be encouraged to share as the Lord leads them. If our meetings are truly open, then we must be sensitive to the direction of the Spirit’s leading. We must each be willing to defer to the needs of others. For example, if a body has new converts, or people who have just come out of a cult, or people who just experienced a major life-altering trauma, it will be necessary to focus on their special needs.
A big issue for all of us is the ability to listen carefully to the concerns of others in the body. If we really love each other, we will want to process the issues on other people’s hearts. We may think their question or concern is misplaced, irrelevant, or a non-issue to us, but if we value them we will take their every word seriously. Thus, if you find yourself internalizing thoughts like, “this place is becoming like an arid seminary,” “I can’t keep up with the fine theological points that are being made,” “all we talk about are people’s experiences and we never get into the Word,” “we study the Bible a lot but do not pray much,” “we go through pretty much the same rut every week,” “I’m feeling depressed and not encouraged when I leave the meeting,” “So-and-so seems to dominate the meeting every week,” “I sense a doctrinal imbalance is taking place,” etc., you need to talk with the brothers and sisters. The problem may be you and your wrong perceptions, but when people have concerns they must be openly addressed. That is why is appears wise for an assembly to periodically discuss how their life together is going, so imbalances can be nipped in the bud.
The chemistry of each assembly is unique. The Spirit will take the things of Christ and apply them to our circumstances. What works for one group won’t make sense in another group. But nothing will work unless the brethren are committed to pursuing the Gospel together, in humility preferring one another. The basic components of church life are given in the New Testament, and the odds are high (given the example of the seven ekklesias Christ evaluated) that every assembly has undealt with weaknesses that require change and repentance. Over the long haul together we need the proper mix of teaching, singing, eating, praising, praying, caring, and many other attributes, in order to be healthy. Most of our concerns about how teaching comes to expression in an assembly would probably be resolved if more open discussion with one another and listening to one another were taking place.
Part Three
— Steve Atkerson
Though we firmly believe the concept of home-sized fellowships to be in accordance with apostolic tradition regarding church practice, it is important to emphasize that the scriptures also describe a much bigger attitude and congregation: a membership in the church universal. It is unhealthy for believers to exist exclusively in one isolated house church. Each house church, properly speaking, is a part of the much bigger city church in whatever town it is located (the New Testament authors philosophically considered each city to contain but one church). Though they may never all meet together in one place, and though there is to be no outward ecclesiological authority controlling them, all the congregations in a given area constitute the one church of that city. We are to cultivate an attitude of oneness, acceptance, love, concern, and cooperation with all the other believers in our city.
What has all this “big church” talk got to do with preaching and teaching? Simply this: In our Bible teaching and interpretation we must not ignore the rest of the church as a whole. The Bible is our final authority, but it is not our only authority. The Holy Spirit has guided and worked in God’s people for the 2,000 years since Jesus left and long before anyone reading this book was even born. When the church of history has studied a matter and reached consensus on it, that becomes authoritative for us as well. Do we really have the right to dispute the theology of the church of the ages?
Who has the authority to decide upon the correct interpretation of the Bible, a single church (i.e. Rome ), the individual believer, or the universal church as a whole? At one extreme, the Roman Catholics will declare that as an individual you are not supposed to interpret your Bible, but rather that you should accept what Rome declares it to mean. At the opposite extreme, though, many Evangelicals have replaced Rome with a new Pope in the form of each individual believer. “Just me and my Bible.” Is this much different?
Do we believe that the Holy Spirit has guided the elect for the past two millennia? When certain basic doctrines are agreed upon today by Christians from every conceivable background, and also by all those who went before us in the Faith, that should get our attention. That is authoritative. Some of these basics include a belief that the sixty-six books of the Bible do finally and completely comprise God’s written revelation to us, the doctrine of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the propitiatory nature of Jesus’ work on the cross, justification by grace through faith unto good works, the future bodily return of Jesus, the future tomb-emptying resurrection of the dead, and the future earth-shattering great white throne judgment.
The original doctrine of sola scriptura included the belief that whereas the Bible is our final authority, it is not our only authority. The church as a whole is also an authority (albeit a secondary one). As Paul wrote to Timothy, the church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1Ti 3:15 ). When the entire church arrives at the same conclusions regarding theology, that is authoritative. Teachings contrary to doctrine universally agreed upon by the church at large are not to be entertained.
The church of history has passed on to us various creeds and confessions. The word “creed” is from a Latin root that simply means, “I believe.” Did you know that there is even a post-New Testament, church-made creed printed in your Bible? It is called the “Table of Contents.” The books of the Bible were not finally compiled and settled upon until quite some time after the apostolic era. How can we trust the church of history to give us the right books that are supposed to be in our Bibles and yet not also trust her to give us right theology about what that same Bible teaches? The main people who resist an acceptance of the basic creeds of the church are those who hold to aberrant theology, denying one or more of the essentials listed above.
Throw out the interpretations of the church as a whole, and you are left with individual subjectivism. Keith Mathison, in his book, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, has aptly pointed out that modern American Evangelicalism has redefined sola scriptura in terms of secular Enlightenment rationalism and rugged democratic individualism. This modern reinterpretation grants autonomy to each individual believer’s reason and judgment. The result is the relativism, subjectivism, and theological chaos that we see in modern Evangelicalism today. Mathison points out that each of us comes to the Scripture with different presuppositions, blind spots, ignorance of important facts, and, most importantly, sinfulness. Since we are far from neutral, each of us reads things into Scripture that are really not there and also misses things that are there. Reason and conscience become the final interpreter. The universal and objective truth of Scripture is made virtually of no effect, because instead of the Church proclaiming with one voice what the Bible teaches, every individual interprets Scripture as seems right in his own eyes. The unbelieving world is left hearing a cacophony of conflicting voices rather than the Word of the living God. In the final analysis, each individual is responsible for establishing his own creed.
The church as a whole has clearly spoken concerning the correct interpretation of many foundational doctrines of the Christian faith. To deny these is to deny the teachings of the Bible. Those who do not hold to sound orthodoxy are not to be allowed to teach their false doctrine (1Ti 1:3), and are not to be recognized as apostles, elders, or deacons (1Ti 3:9, Titus 1:9). Our churches are not like little row boats out on Lake Placid . Instead, we will go through storms on the high seas. Challenges will come. Aberrant teaching will wash up on deck. It is not a matter of if, but when. Like the captains war ships, we must cry “Repel all boarders!” in guarding against and repelling heretical theology. By “boarders” I mean the false teaching and not necessarily those who proclaim it. Of course, the difference between the two can be a fine line. We are to gently instruct those who oppose, “in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who had taken them captive to do his will” (2Ti 2:25-26).
The Nicene Creed
This authoritative statement of Christian orthodoxy was the consensus of church councils that met in Nicea (A.D. 325) and Constantinople (A.D. 381). The wording of the Nicene Creed comes entirely from the New Testament. It is the most widely accepted and used brief statement of the Christian Faith.
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic* and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism** for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
A chapter in the theological workbook The Practice of The Early Church has been written for those who desire to further study the ideas expressed in this article. Using the Socratic teaching method, it encourages readers to come to their own conclusions from reading the scriptures. It is useful for self-study or as a hand-out for group Bible study.
* In this context, “catholic” means “universal.”
** “For” here means “because of” as in “She cried for joy.” Just as circumcision was the outward seal of the righteousness that Abraham had already received by faith (Ro 4), so too water baptism is the outward sign of the salvation every believer already has because of his faith in the risen Lord Jesus and the work that He did for His people on the cross.
[Left-to-Right: Steve Atkerson and Beresford Job]
Steve Atkerson
Steve lives in Georgia with his wife, Sandra, and their three home-schooled children. Steve graduated from Georgia Tech and worked in industrial electronics before heading off to seminary. After receiving a Master of Divinity degree from Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary in Memphis, served on the pastoral staff of a Southern Baptist Church. After seven years in the traditional pastorate, he resigned to begin working with churches that desire to follow apostolic traditions in their church practice. Since 1990 he travels and teaches as the Lord opens doors of opportunity. Steve is an elder at a local house church, is president of NTRF, edited Toward A House Church Theology, authored both The Practice of the Early Church: A Theological Workbook and The Equipping Manual, and is editor of and a contributing author to Ekklesia: To The Roots of Biblical House Church Life.
Beresford Job
Beresford Job came to know the Lord in 1971. In 1976 he responded to a call into full time itinerant teaching and pastoral ministry, and has pioneered biblical house church life and experience in England throughout that time. He is a recognized elder in the Chigwell Christian Fellowship, a biblically based church he helped to establish in Essex in the mid 1980's. He offers a comprehensive nearly 300 strong catalogue of Bible teaching tapes which cover just about every biblical subject under the sun, and has always had a burden to make the ‘whole counsel of God’ available to any who want it.
In recent years he has traveled extensively in America as well helping to both establish and nurture biblical churches. He has been married to Belinda for 23 years and they are the proud parents of Bethany, aged 8. Belinda and Bethany travel with him whenever he has to be away from home for more than a few of days (he's never very happy without them), and together they seek to model biblical family life as the absolute fundamental foundation of church life.
Beresford has never been salaried in his ministry and has always lived entirely by faith, only making his needs known only to the Lord in prayer. As such he has proven over a period of three decades the simple biblical principle that the Lord’s work, done the Lord’s way, will always receive His provision.
Beresford can be contacted through the Chigwell Christian Fellowship web site at: www.house-church.org
«back
