Expert: Clifford H. Readout, Jr. - 7/26/2006

Question
Pardon the long explanation, but there *is* a question at the end of this.

I don't get the impression that any of the epistles were written specifically to future generations (to us).  Rather, they seem to have been written to people who already knew the apostles and who had some sense of the immediate historical context of Christianity.
So it seems to me that we in this generation are left with the task of determining how to interpret and how and whether to implement what was written about various ecclesiological matters.
Why do you suppose that it seems none of the apostles thought to write a letter specifically to generations who would not already be privy to them and their message?  As it is, it seems that we almost have to be forensics experts, trying to piece together bits and pieces of what was WELL established in their day.
For instance, we know (or can justify assumptions) that they had (or would have had) exact teachings on: the wearing of veils, the silence of women in the assembly, the plurality of elders, how the house churches fit in with the mass assembly, the use of musical instruments, the development of a professional clergy class, the purchase of church buildings, whether to split the body into various peer "ministries", when and how the miraculous gifts would pass away, what would be the role of the Spirit in the individual believer after the gifts pass away, etc.
Yet all the communications between the apostles and the believers were not preserved for us.
Many tell me that these things must therefore be "unimportant", else God would have saved them for us.  But I cannot imagine someone asking Paul or Peter one of these things and being told in response, "your question is simply unimportant, therefore I won't answer"!

I often think what a great amount of strife, division, and suffering could have been averted by just a few more strokes of the apostolic pen.  Had they sat back to consider what it might be like in a world 2000 years removed from their own, would they not have written us at least one letter about how the church was to be organized and what it was supposed to do?

Why do you suppose that we have no such document?  Are these things somehow supposed to be obvious from the texts we have?  If so, why are these particular questions so difficult for people who honestly want to know the right answer?  Is it the translations? Is it our traditions?  Do we have bad hearts that keep us from seeing the obvious?  Or are these answers simply not present in the text as we have it?

It's clear to me that they had instruction that we do not have.  And they had more accounts of what was happening than we have (about the acts and teachings of the apostles, especially).

So why don't we have what they had?  It makes me feel like a second-class believer-----left out.

Your thoughts on this?


Answer
Dear Jack,

Sorry to have taken so long.  It has been impossible for me to attend to this question until now.

It is not easy to handle this tyope of requests, to express my thoughts about an issue, rather than to give specific answers to specific questions.  Opinions are usually not worth the time it takes to write them.

I do not personally have the problems you express.  Some of those problems also result from an anachronistic approach to investigation, that is, inserting into the meaning of the text thinking which rules today, but not then.  It is much more efficient to take a literalistic view of the Scriptures wherever possible.

> I don't get the impression that any of the epistles were written specifically to future generations (to us).  Rather, they seem to have been written to people who already knew the apostles and who had some sense of the immediate historical context of Christianity.

It seems more likely that the Lord intended to overcome this limitation by allowing the texts to convey timeless principles that would apply cross-culturally in every generation.

> So it seems to me that we in this generation are left with the task of determining how to interpret and how and whether to implement what was written about various ecclesiological matters.

Understanding comes easier if one abandons the individual interpretation approach.  The largest problem exposed by the questions is this one of “private interpretation.”  Too many people have abandoned the more serious approach to Scripture, the one that treats it as though it actually was verbally inspired by God, at least in the autographs.  If one honors the Bible in that way, and gives it the diligence that estimation demands, most of the problems you specify disappear.

> Why do you suppose that it seems none of the apostles thought to write a letter specifically to generations who would not already be privy to them and their message?

I really do not think it was a choice they could make.
2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
There is a relative abundance of literature left by those not considered to have been so inspired, and some of it seems intended to convey a message to future generations.  Almost all of that body of literature has proven unhelpful in understanding anything.

My own studies leave me believing that the writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write timeless principles that are needed in every generation.

> As it is, it seems that we almost have to be forensics experts, trying to piece together bits and pieces of what was WELL established in their day.
For instance, we know (or can justify assumptions) that they had (or would have had) exact teachings on: the wearing of veils, the silence of women in the assembly, the plurality of elders, how the house churches fit in with the mass assembly, the use of musical instruments, the development of a professional clergy class, the purchase of church buildings, whether to split the body into various peer "ministries", when and how the miraculous gifts would pass away, what would be the role of the Spirit in the individual believer after the gifts pass away, etc.

Actually, the text, if not abused as a collection of proof texts, leaves nothing unclear about any of the particular issues you mention. But when searched with various presuppositions, it is possible even for “conflicting” details to be apparent.

> Yet all the communications between the apostles and the believers were not preserved for us.

If one believes the testimony of the Scriptures on the subject, God promised to preserve His Word through all generations. And, in spite of the best organized efforts of hostile governments and religious organizations, it has been abundantly preserved.  The conclusion resulting from this perspective is that everything God wanted preserved has been.

> Many tell me that these things must therefore be "unimportant", else God would have saved them for us.  But I cannot imagine someone asking Paul or Peter one of these things and being told in response, "your question is simply unimportant, therefore I won't answer"!

Nor could I imagine any of the leaders of the first century church taking so cavalier an attitude toward a sincere questioner.  It is necessary to realize, though, that they did not have the purpose that the Scribes and Pharisees did.  They did not intend to compile a list of rules to cover every possible scenario man could devise.  Rather they established the foundational principles Christians were to live by, and supplied specifics only where they would be important for each generation.

> I often think what a great amount of strife, division, and suffering could have been averted by just a few more strokes of the apostolic pen.

The experience of human nature I have had indicates to me that men create strife, division and suffering regardless of the instructions they get from God.

No amount of written instructions are helpful when men reserve to themselves the right to interpret it according to their own preferences and biases.

> Had they sat back to consider what it might be like in a world 2000 years removed from their own, would they not have written us at least one letter about how the church was to be organized and what it was supposed to do?

How easy would it be for you to comprehend the changes that have taken place in that length of time?  I’ve tried to explain jet propulsion to a man who had never even seen an elevator. Imagine trying to explain the distinctives of a technological society as it affects personal relationships to one living two thousand years ago.  Nevertheless, I again consider that the Lord had them include the important aspects of Christian life, and even much about how it would be in “the last days.”  The prophecies have been remarkably precise and accurate.

> Why do you suppose that we have no such document?  Are these things somehow supposed to be obvious from the texts we have?  If so, why are these particular questions so difficult for people who honestly want to know the right answer?  Is it the translations? Is it our traditions?  Do we have bad hearts that keep us from seeing the obvious?  Or are these answers simply not present in the text as we have it?

All but one of the reasons you suggest are probably relevant.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

For the questions you have specified, the answers are all in the text. But the word of God is not intended to be read, like a novel, or even an academic textbook. It is to be studied with serious diligence.

Translations can present problems, because it is impossible for a translator to escape his own bias.  Fortunately, there have been honest scholars who have recorded for us good lexical resources that even those who cannot read the ancient Hebrew and Greek can use to good effect.  The particular text one uses is also significant.  It seems wisest to use the Majority Text, rather than one of the eclectic texts preferred by translators in the last two centuries.

Most assuredly, non-biblical traditions have hindered understanding.  It is too tempting to look for support for our traditions rather than looking to determine what traditions to keep.  It is also apparent that one’s morality often dictates one’s theology.

> It's clear to me that they had instruction that we do not have.  And they had more accounts of what was happening than we have (about the acts and teachings of the apostles, especially).

It is not so clear that they had any more essential instructions than we have. But it is certain that they had much less information about the events in their world than we do.  We have the historical record (as incomplete as it may be) and we have incredible access to all of it.  They had no universal communications, and news traveled slowly and did not reach everyone as it can today.

> So why don't we have what they had?  It makes me feel like a second-class believer-----left out.

> Your thoughts on this?

I think we have enough detailed information to determine the essentials of Christian doctrine and practice, but only if we are more serious in obtaining the truth from the Word of God than most are.

Feel free to write again.

CR