The First Day of the Week in the New Testament (part 8 of 8)

by | Apr 20, 2017 | Biblical Worship, New Testament, Worship

This discussion comes from Getting the Garden Right, coming soon from Founders Press. It is used with permission.
Copyright © 2017 Richard C. Barcellos. All rights reserved.

(This is part 6 of 8, click here for part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6 & part 7)

 The Reason for First-Day Meetings in the New Testament (continued)

It is important to recognize that the resurrection is an epoch-changing event. The resurrection is seen as the beginning of the new creation. Believers are united to Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection through faith.

Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin (Rom. 6:3-6)

and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. (Col. 2:11-12)

Union with Christ brings believers into the orbit of redemptive privilege. They may know “the power of His resurrection” (Phil. 3:10) because they are united to him through faith. God “made us alive together with Christ . . . and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in heavenly places in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:5-6). Being in Christ makes believers citizens of heaven (Phil. 3:20).

Union with Christ also involves existence in two ages at once—this age (the old creation) and the age to come (the new creation). The age to come is the age of the resurrection.

Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, 35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (Luke 20:34-36)

Christ’s resurrection is the first bodily resurrection of the age to come because it was “the firstfruits” (1 Cor. 15:20).

But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming (1 Cor. 15:20-23)

Christ’s resurrection was the first of similar resurrections to come. But being “the firstfruits,” it is not totally other than that which follows. It is different in time, but it is part of the same resurrection. It is part of the same harvest, just the first of the much greater harvest to come. Gaffin, commenting on “firstfruits,” says:

The word is not simply an indication of temporal priority. Rather it brings into view Christ’s resurrection as the “firstfruits” of the resurrection-harvest, the initial portion of the whole. His resurrection is the representative beginning of the resurrection of believers. In other words, the term seems deliberately chosen to make evident the organic connection between the two resurrections. In the context, Paul’s “thesis” over against his opponents is that the resurrection of Jesus has the bodily resurrection of “those who sleep” as its necessary consequence. His resurrection is not simply a guarantee; it is a pledge in the sense that it is the actual beginning of the general event. In fact, on the basis of this verse it can be said that Paul views the two resurrections not so much as two events but as two episodes of the same event.[1]

Christ’s resurrection is the most powerful sign of the presence of the age to come. His resurrected body took on qualities it did not possess prior to the resurrection (Rom. 1:4). It was an age-to-come body, existing in this age for a brief time on the earth and now in heaven. In Christ’s resurrection, then, we see the age to come eclipsing this age. This is why Paul says, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new” (2 Cor. 5:17, NKJV). This is not only true of personal renovation but also a state of existence in the new creation brought in by Christ. In Galatians 6:15, Paul says, “For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.”

The age to come has eclipsed this age in the resurrection of Christ. Hebrews 6:5 says that some “have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come.” Waldron says, “The great realities of the age to come have in some sense broken into and become operative in this age.”[2] Waldron’s further comments are helpful at this point:

The New Testament teaches, therefore, that there is a new creation in Christ (Gal. 6:15; 2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:10). The idea of new creation is frequently associated with Christ’s resurrection (cf. Eph. 2:10 with 2:5,7; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10 with Rom. 6:1-6; Col. 1:15-18). By union with Christ in His death, the old man is destroyed. By union with Christ in His resurrection, the new man is created. When He rose again He became the firstborn of God’s new creation. As He was the beginning of the old creation, so He is now the beginning of the new (Rev. 3:14). Thus, the memorial of Christ’s resurrection is of necessity a memorial of the new creation. Thus, the Lord’s Day like the Sabbath and unlike any other religious observance points to both creation and redemption.[3]

Christ’s resurrection is the apex of all of God’s redemptive work on the earth. It is an epoch-changing event. It ushers in the first phase of the new creation, the last Adam’s entrance into glory. In one sense, it affects everything. But how does it affect the Sabbath under the inaugurated new covenant? That it is the redemptive-historical, theological, and Christological basis for first-day church meetings seems clear. But does it mark the end of all Sabbaths for the people of God? Or does it function as the first creation did in relation to the first Sabbath? Does it function as the basis for the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day because it is the day Christ ceased from his redemptive work, as God rested from his creative work? Surely, no greater, more unique event could be asked for to change the day of sacred rest for the people of God.

 

[1] Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Resurrection and Redemption (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1987), 34-35.

[2] Samuel E. Waldron, The End Times Made Simple (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2003), 49.

[3] Waldron, Lord’s Day.

The First Day of the Week in the New Testament (part 6 of 8)

The First Day of the Week in the New Testament (part 6 of 8)

by | Apr 4, 2017 | Biblical Worship, New Testament, Worship

This discussion comes from Getting the Garden Right, coming soon from Founders Press. It is used with permission.
Copyright © 2017 Richard C. Barcellos. All rights reserved.

(This is part 6 of 8, click here for part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4 & part 5)

First-Day Corporate Meetings in the New Testament (continued)

It is no small matter for the apostle Paul to give orders to the churches concerning first-day meetings. Apostolic authority is binding for all churches. When Paul gave orders to the churches, his orders were the orders of Christ himself. John 16:13-14 (referenced above) contain a promise from Christ of inspired truth to complete the revelation of the Father’s will. This promise refers to the apostolate. Ephesians 2:20 says that the church was “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” First Corinthians 4:17 says:

For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, and he will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, just as I teach everywhere in every church. (1 Cor. 4:17)

What Paul taught “everywhere in every church” was binding on the Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 7:17, Paul says, “Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches.” Paul had authority to ordain the same things in all the churches. First Corinthians 11:2 says, “Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.” Apostolic traditions were binding on the Corinthians (see 2 Thess. 2:15).

So for Paul to give orders to the churches means that whatever he ordered was binding on them (and subsequent churches). Apostolic authority carried with it the authority of Christ himself. The apostles were the revelatory agents through whom Christ completed the will of his Father. As the saying goes, the apostle of the man is as the man himself. First-day meetings of the church for worship, then, are the will of Christ for his churches, revealed through his apostles.

It is of interest to note something that goes on in the New Testament that relates to our discussion. Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 16 imply that it is the will of our Lord that churches gather on the first day of the week. As Paul told us, what he ordered for the Corinthians he had done for the Galatian churches, which assumes they met on the first day of the week as well. According to Acts 20:7 and the other relevant factors noted above, first-day meetings for acts of public worship by the churches was the New Testament norm. It is interesting to consider the practice of first-day church worship meetings, the assumption that the basis for such is the resurrection of our Lord (to be discussed under the next heading and in chapter 14, agreed upon by most), noting the authoritative approval of the apostle Paul for such meetings, assuming this to be dominical and apostolic sanction for such, in light of the probability that 1 Corinthians was written prior to the letters to the Romans and Colossians. If one takes Romans 14:5-6, Galatians 4:9-10, and Colossians 2:16-17 as the negation of all special days pertaining to Christians and churches, this would seem to contradict the assumption of 1 Corinthians 16 and other parts of the New Testament. The words of William Ames are worth pondering at this point:

. . . in the practice of the churches at the time of the apostles, when mention is made of the observance of the first day, Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2, it is not remembered as some recent ordinance but as something long since accepted by the disciples of Christ. . . . [I]n all things the apostles delivered to the churches what they had received from Christ, 1 Cor. 11:23. . . . [T]his institution could have been deferred not more than one week after the death of Christ if God’s own law of one sanctified day per week were to remain firm . . . The placing of the holy sabbath of the Jews on the seventh day was abrogated by the death of Christ. . . . [I]t was also most appropriate that the day of worship in the New Testament should be ordained by him who ordained the worship itself and from whom all blessing and grace is to be expected in worship.[1]

Assuming what Ames says is the case (and I think it is), how can Romans 14, Galatians 4, and Colossians 2 refer to the Lord’s Day? Ames comments on these texts as follows:

First, in all these passages the observance of some day for religious use by the action of Christ is no more condemned or denied than the choice of certain meat for religious use by the action of the same Christ. But no Christian would reasonably conclude from those passages that the choice of bread and wine for religious use in the Lord’s Supper is either unlawful or not ordained by Christ. Nothing, therefore, can be drawn from these passages against the observance of the Lord’s Day on the authority of Christ. Second, the Apostle in Rom. 14 expressly speaks of the judgment about certain days which then produced offense among Christians; but the observance of the Lord’s Day which the Apostle himself teaches had already taken place in all the churches (1 Cor. 16:1, 2) and could not be the occasion of offense. Third, it is most probable that the Apostle in this passage is treating of a dispute about choosing of days to eat or to refuse certain meats, for the question is put in Rom. 14:2 about meats only and in verses 5 and 6 the related problem of duty is discussed; and in the remainder of the chapter he considers only meats, making no mention of days. Fourth, in the Galatians passage the discussion relates only to the observance of days, months, and years as an aspect of bondage to weak and beggarly elemental spirits (4:9). But it was far from the Apostle’s mind and altogether strange to the Christian faith to consider any commandment of the decalogue or any ordinance of Christ in such a vein. Fifth, in Col. 2 the sabbaths mentioned are specially and expressly described as new moons and ceremonial shadows of things to come in Christ. But the sabbath commanded in the decalogue and our Lord’s Day are of another nature entirely, as has been shown.[2]

Whether or not readers agree with every element of Ames’ arguments is not the point. The point being made is that prior to the writing of Romans and Colossians, holy drink and food (i.e., the Lord’s Supper), and a holy day (i.e., the Lord’s Day) were already in place. Whatever particular issues each passage is addressing, they cannot teach against the bread and wine and the sanctity of the first day of the week.

A further dilemma for those who think Romans 14, Galatians 4, and Colossians 2 deny the sanctity of the Lord’s Day needs mention at this time. If the Lord’s Day, the first day of the week, has not been sanctioned by our Lord himself through the apostles for churches to gather for public worship, who determines when churches ought to gather for such? If one says it is up to each church, does each church then have the authority to discipline one of its own for preferring another day and rarely attending their own church’s meetings for worship? Would this not be a violation of the interpretation of Romans 14, Galatians 4, and Colossians 2 that those who advocate against the sanctity of the first day take? It seems to me it would. If the words “Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind” refer to the Lord’s Day, the first day of the week, as well as all other days, how could a church discipline any of its members for forsaking the assembly of the saints, let alone encourage them to assemble on a stated day? Romans 14 cannot be a universal law against all holy days, just as it cannot be a universal law against all holy food and drink, and neither can Galatians 4 or Colossians 2. If they were, the Lord’s Supper could just as well be observed by using tacos and beer.

First day of the week meetings in the New Testament were sanctioned by Christ through his apostles. These meetings for worship are not to be placed in the category of adiaphora, something indifferent or outside the law of Christ. This is not an issue of Christian liberty, left up to each individual soul to determine what’s best for them. It is the will of Christ revealed to us in the New Testament in various ways to be practiced by his churches until he comes again.

Part 7

 

[1] Ames, The Marrow of Theology, 2.15.30 (295).

[2] Ames, The Marrow of Theology, 2.15.32 (297).

The First Day of the Week in the New Testament (part 5 of 8)

The First Day of the Week in the New Testament (part 5 of 8)

by | Mar 30, 2017 | Biblical Worship, New Testament, Worship

This discussion comes from Getting the Garden Right, coming soon from Founders Press. It is used with permission.
Copyright © 2017 Richard C. Barcellos. All rights reserved.

(This is part 5 of 8, click here for part 1, part 2, part 3 & part 4)

First-Day Corporate Meetings in the New Testament

Notice the phenomenon of first-day corporate meetings in the New Testament. Acts 2:1 indicates that the Jerusalem disciples were assembled on the day of Pentecost, the first day of the week. “When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place.”

Acts 20:7 says, “Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.” Here Luke tells us that the disciples in Troas met “on the first day of the week” with no comment on the reason why. This is not a command to meet on the first day of the week. It does, however, appear to assume a practice already in place. As Owen says, “This [i.e., gathering on the first day] they did without any extraordinary warning or calling together . . .”[1] It is not the institution of first-day meetings; it is a record of one such. On this day, the disciples conducted activities with special religious significance. Some understand the breaking of bread as the Lord’s Supper. Paul spoke to them, surely teaching them apostolic doctrine (i.e., authoritative oral apostolic tradition). They met on the first day of the week and had fellowship around spiritual matters. This text echoes aspects of the conduct of the early church, as recorded in Acts 2:42, “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.” It is also of interest to note that Paul was in a hurry to get to Jerusalem (Acts 20:16), yet he stayed seven days in Troas (Acts 20:6) and did not leave until the day after the one described in 20:7. He left on Monday. Commenting on Acts 20:7, Martin notes:

. . . it seems that this incident occurred on the day that the churches ordinarily gathered for worship, for the way that Luke includes a reference to the church meeting “on the first day of the week,” i.e., with no further explanation, indicates that this was, as Owen says, “that which was in common observance amongst all the disciples of Christ.”[2]

The reference to the first day of the week in Acts 20:7 seems to be something early readers of Acts would not need explained to them. Though the basis for meeting on that day as opposed to another day is not stated, putting the various pieces of evidence provided for us in the New Testament together, it is not a leap in the dark to assume they met on that day due to the theological and practical implications for the church of our Lord’s resurrection.

In 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 we read:

Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. 2 On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come. (1 Cor. 16:1-2)

Here the Corinthians are told to do something that Paul had ordered the churches of Galatia to do. Though the specific apostolic injunction has to do with a first-century need is agreed upon by all, Paul’s mention of “the first day of every week” is what is of interest to our discussion. Paul does not order first-day meetings in Corinth in this text; he assumes that’s when they meet, and he assumes that they meet every week. Earlier in 1 Corinthians, Paul discusses the meeting of the Corinthian church in the context of the Lord’s Supper. In 1 Corinthians 11:17-22, we read:

But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. 20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, 21 for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you. (1 Cor. 11:17-22)

Paul distinguishes between the gathered church, the house of God, and their own homes in verses 17 (“you [plural] come together”), 18 (“when you [plural] come together as a church”), 20 (“when you [plural] meet together”), and 22 (“Do you [plural] not have houses in which to eat and drink?”). He specifically mentions coming together for the purpose of partaking of the Lord’s Supper (v. 20), though they had so trampled upon it that their practice had ceased being what they intended it to be. Upon what day of the week did the Corinthians “come together as a church”? Though chapter 11 does not tell us, we do have 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 and other considerations from the New Testament that lead us to the conclusion that they came “together as a church” every first day of the week.

Some want to argue what Paul is requiring in 1 Corinthians 16 is a private putting aside and saving, but if that were his intent, they would have to take a collection when he came. This, in fact, is what he does not want.[3] Martin’s words are to the point:

He is not saying, as is often suggested, that each one should lay aside his contributions privately at home, for then, any day of the week would do as well as another and a final collection still would need to be made. In specifying the first day of the week, Paul makes it clear that he is speaking of an activity that will take place at the time of their public assemblies. And he assumes that this will take place on the same day as in the churches of Galatia.[4]

Part 6

[1] Owen, Works, 18:423.

[2] Martin, The Christian Sabbath, 278. The quote from Owen is cited as “John Owen, Hebrews, 2:423.”

[3] Wells, The Christian and the Sabbath, 95, commenting on 1 Cor. 16:1-2, says: “Is Paul speaking of an activity that was to take place in church meetings here? Probably not.”

[4] Martin, The Christian Sabbath, 281-82. See Owen, Works, 18:424.

Saying of the Amen, Clapping, and Hand-raising in Worship 4

by | Mar 9, 2015 | Worship

In my previous posts in this series I have made the point that saying the amen has all the hallmarks of a required part of worship.  In contrast I have shown that there is no reason to regard clapping in the same way.  It is at best (and most sympathetically viewed) a permitted circumstance of worship.

In this final post we come to consider hand-raising in worship; and here we confront a practice that seems to occupy a kind of middle ground in worship between saying the amen (a clear duty) and clapping (a possible circumstance).  Here is the biblical data.

I.       The Biblical Occurrences of Raising Hands in Formal Worship

The following texts speak to hand-raising in worship in the Bible.

Leviticus 9:22:  “Then Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them, and he stepped down after making the sin offering and the burnt offering and the peace offerings.”  Here Aaron lifts his hands in order to pronounce the priestly blessing in the context of formal Old Testament worship.

Deuteronomy 32:40:  “Indeed, I lift up My hand to heaven, And say, as I live forever.”  Here God is presented in a formal act of oath-taking in which He swears by Himself.  I think the swearing of solemn oaths and vows suggests formal worship, although they are not always taken in the context of the formal worship of God.

Nehemiah 8:6:  “Then Ezra blessed the LORD the great God. And all the people answered, ‘Amen, Amen!’ while lifting up their hands; then they bowed low and worshiped the LORD with their faces to the ground.”  Here all the people are gathered in circumstances that remind one very much of New Covenant worship.  All the people lift up their hands while saying the amen.  The lifting up of their hands is clearly an act which indicates their agreement and participation with Ezra in blessing the Lord.  They also bow low and worship the Lord with faces to the ground.

Psalm 28:2:  “Hear the voice of my supplications when I cry to You for help, When I lift up my hands toward Your holy sanctuary.”  Lifting up hands toward the holy sanctuary is clearly a way of speaking of prayer.  The context of verse 1 confirms this.  The reference to the holy sanctuary suggests formal worship.

Psalm 63:4:  “So I will bless You as long as I live; I will lift up my hands in Your name.  Lifting hands is here parallel to and explanatory of blessing God.”  Note the reference to praising God in verse 3 and seeing God in the sanctuary in verse 2.  Lifting up of hands, then, is not just indicative of prayer, but also of praise and blessing God.

Psalm 134:1-3:   “Behold, bless the LORD, all servants of the LORD, Who serve by night in the house of the LORD!  Lift up your hands to the sanctuary And bless the LORD.  May the LORD bless you from Zion, He who made heaven and earth.”  Again, lifting up hands is indicative according to verse 2 of blessing the Lord, and this takes place according to verse 1 in the house of the Lord.

Psalm 141:2:  “May my prayer be counted as incense before You; The lifting up of my hands as the evening offering.”  Here lifting up hands is indicative of prayer.  This is seen in the parallel between the first and second halves of the verse.  The second half of the verse has an interesting reference to the temple worship when David wishes that the lifting up his hands would be viewed by God as the evening offering.  This verse is interesting when compared with Malachi 1:11 and 1 Tim. 2:7-8.   It shows perhaps how Paul arrived at his interpretation and application of Malachi 1:11.

Lamentations 2:19:   “Arise, cry aloud in the night At the beginning of the night watches; Pour out your heart like water Before the presence of the Lord; Lift up your hands to Him For the life of your little ones Who are faint because of hunger At the head of every street.”  Again, crying out to the Lord is associated with lifting up hands to Him.

Lamentations 3:41:  “We lift up our heart and hands toward God in heaven.”  The context shows that lifting up hands is associated (v. 40) with returning in prayer and repentance to the God of heaven.

Luke 24:50:  “And He led them out as far as Bethany, and He lifted up His hands and blessed them.”  We are to understand that Jesus is here blessing His disciples with His high priestly blessing on the occasion of departing from them.

1 Timothy 2:8:  “Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension.”  The context here is the formal worship and prayers of the church.  I have already pointed out the OT background of this statement in Malachi 1:11 and Psalm 141:2.  [Lifting up of hands is here limited to adult males, but this is probably because Paul is speaking of leading in prayer and does not believe women should be permitted to do this in the assembled church.  The idea that only adult males may lift their hands and only when they are leading in prayer is not supported by the parallel passages in the Old Testament.  Cf. Nehemiah 8:6; Lamentations 2:19; 3:41.]

James 4:8:  “Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.”  There is a possible reference to the lifting up of hands in worship.  They must be cleansed before and with them one draws near to God.

Revelation 10:5-6:  “Then the angel whom I saw standing on the sea and on the land lifted up his right hand to heaven,  and swore by Him who lives forever and ever, WHO CREATED HEAVEN AND THE THINGS IN IT, AND THE EARTH AND THE THINGS IN IT, AND THE SEA AND THE THINGS IN IT, that there will be delay no longer.”  Lifting up the hand is here associated with the solemn act of swearing an oath.  Cf. Deut. 32:40 in which God is pictured as lifting up His hand in order to swear by Himself.

II.      The Proper Conclusions about Raising Hands in Formal Worship

A.      Lifting up of the hands is associated with solemn acts of devotion to God including swearing oaths, giving benedictions, saying the amen, offering prayer including prayers of repentance, and praising and blessing God.

B.      It is done and, thus, given biblical precedent in the context explicitly of the formal and corporate worship of God both in the Old and New Testaments.  In Leviticus 9:22 Aaron blesses the people in the midst of formal worship.  In Nehemiah 8:6 in the midst of formal worship the people say the amen.  In Psalm 134:1 the servants of God serving in the house of the Lord lift up their hands in blessing God.  In 1 Timothy 2:8 the men in the context of the worship of the church lift up their hands while leading the church in prayer.

C.      This is quite different than the biblical references to clapping.  While clapping in a few references is associated with joy and praise and even with praising God, it is never explicitly mentioned in conjunction with the formal, corporate worship of God in either the Old or New Testaments.  Neither is it associated explicitly with solemn acts like swearing oaths, giving benedictions, saying the amen, and offering prayer.

D.      While I am not prepared to say that lifting up of the hands is an element of worship, it is very closely associated with several elements of worship.  In such a case it would be difficult and even wrong in my estimation for elders to forbid the people of God to raise their hands in worship.  I suppose that some might abuse this and wave their hands in a showy or distracting way.  Such would be an abuse of the biblical teaching to be dealt with on an individual basis and not by a general prohibition of hand-raising.

E.      While clapping is never mentioned in the context of formal worship in the Bible, in contrast there are many mentions of the raising of hands in formal worship.  Does this mean, then, that the raising of hands in worship is a required part of worship?  I do not think this conclusion follows.  We are dealing here with a matter of outward expression—like clapping.  This suggests that hand-raising in worship must not as an external matter be given the status of a required part of worship.  I think we must class it still as a circumstance of worship.  On the other hand, we are dealing with an outward expression or gesture that seems to have a special propriety in worship.  Did you hear that word—propriety?  While I would not say that raising hands is a part of worship, I would say that it is sometimes proper in worship.  It is not commanded, but it is proper.  Do you understand the difference between something that is commanded and something that is proper?  It is proper to greet someone by smiling and extending your hand to shake their hand.  Not to do so would usually be improper.  It is not a sin to fail to do this, but it may be improper.  It is proper to dress up to attend a wedding.  Not to do so would usually be improper.  It is not a sin to fail to do this, but it may be improper.  What I want to say—to repeat myself—is that while hand-raising is not a part of worship, it is sometimes the proper thing to do.  It is not merely a permitted circumstance of worship.  It is a proper circumstance of worship.

Let me repeat, then, what I said about these three matters of saying the amen, clapping, and hand-raising in formal worship.  There is clear duty in saying the amen, a circumstantial possibility in clapping, and an occasional propriety in hand-raising.

What kind of atmosphere for formal worship do we see through the lens of this study into saying the amen, clapping, and hand-raising in the formal worship of the Bible?  I think it is one which is fitted to call the unresponsive, silent traditionalist and the uncontrolled and judgmental progressivist to serious reflection and, even I think, repentance.  I think it is one which presents a lively, expressive, responsive, reverent, and theocentric form of worship.

Saying of the Amen, Clapping, and Hand-raising in Worship 3

by | Mar 2, 2015 | Worship

In this series I have set out to examine the issue of the atmosphere of worship especially as it is formed by the contemporary practices of clapping and hand-raising in worship.  But before addressing those practices, I addressed the matter of saying the amen in worship.  Using the confessional categories provided by to us by the confessional distinction between parts and circumstances, I have argued in my last post that saying the amen at appropriate points in formal worship is actually a required part of worship.  It is the clear duty of Christians to say “amen” in worship.

Using the same confessional categories, we now come to examine clapping and hand-raising. Are they also perhaps required parts of worship?  Or are they permitted circumstances of worship?  Or are they perhaps an actual violation of the regulative principle and neither a required part or permitted circumstance of worship?

Now granted, the subjects of clapping and raising hands in worship cause deep visceral reactions.  Some see such things as the sign that a church is really alive.  Others want to flee in horror from any place where such things are allowed.  What seldom happens is for either the devotee of contemporary worship or the supporter of traditional worship to actually ask if either clapping or raising hands in worship have any biblical basis or precedent.

Let’s look at the biblical status of clapping in worship.

I.       Its Various Meanings in the Bible

Clapping has a variety of uses and meanings in the Bible.  Let me quickly survey the passages where it is mentioned so you can see this.  These are the 12 places where clapping is mentioned in the NASB—every last one of them!

2 Kings 11:12 Then he brought the king’s son out and put the crown on him and gave him the testimony; and they made him king and anointed him, and they clapped their hands and said, “Long live the king!”  Literally, the text says that these people “struck palms.”  It is apparent that this clapping was the expression of joy.

Job 27:23 “Men will clap their hands at him And will hiss him from his place.”  Literally, the text says that men will strike their hands.  Context suggests that the meaning of this is strong derision.

Job 34:37 “‘For he adds rebellion to his sin; He claps his hands among us, And multiplies his words against God.'”  Literally the Hebrew means to “clap or slap.”  Context suggests that this expresses anger against God.

Psalm 47:1 For the choir director. A Psalm of the sons of Korah. “O clap your hands, all peoples; Shout to God with the voice of joy.”  Literally, the text calls people to strike their hand. The context suggests that this clapping expresses joy and praise to God.

Psalm 98:8 “Let the rivers clap their hands, Let the mountains sing together for joy.” Literally, the psalm says that the rivers clap their hands.  Context suggests joy and praise to God.

Isaiah 55:12 “For you will go out with joy And be led forth with peace; The mountains and the hills will break forth into shouts of joy before you, And all the trees of the field will clap their hands.”  Literally, the Hebrew speaks of striking or clapping hands.  Context suggests that clapping expresses joy and praise.

Lamentations 2:15 “All who pass along the way Clap their hands in derision at you; They hiss and shake their heads At the daughter of Jerusalem, ‘Is this the city of which they said, “The perfection of beauty, A joy to all the earth”?'” Literally the Hebrews says they slap or clap hands.  Context suggests that clapping expresses derision.

Ezekiel 6:11 “Thus says the Lord GOD, ‘Clap your hand, stamp your foot and say, “Alas, because of all the evil abominations of the house of Israel, which will fall by sword, famine and plague!”‘”  Literally, the Hebrew says strike in your hands.  Context suggests that this is an expression of sorrow and grief.

Ezekiel 21:14 “You therefore, son of man, prophesy and clap your hands together; and let the sword be doubled the third time, the sword for the slain.” It is the sword for the great one slain, which surrounds them,  Literally the Hebrew reads smite palm.  Context suggests that this is an expression of sorrow and grief.

Ezekiel 21:17 “I will also clap My hands together, and I will appease My wrath; I, the LORD, have spoken.”  Literally, the Hebrews says, I will smite hand to hand.  The context suggests that this an expression of anger.

Ezekiel 25:6-7 “For thus says the Lord GOD, ‘Because you have clapped your hands and stamped your feet and rejoiced with all the scorn of your soul against the land of Israel'”  Literally, the Hebrews says because you have clapped hand.  Context suggests derisive glee or joy or triumph as the meaning of this clapping.

Nahum 3:19 “There is no relief for your breakdown, Your wound is incurable. All who hear about you Will clap their hands over you, For on whom has not your evil passed continually?”  Literally the Hebrews reads, strike hand.  Context suggests derisive glee or joy or triumph.

These various references to clapping in the Bible show that it is a physical expression of strong emotion with reference to something or someone.  As such one might suppose that at least in some cultures it might appropriately and naturally express the strong emotions associated with the worship of God.  This raises the question directly, then, of …

II.      Its Possible Application to the Formal Worship of God

With regard to the possible application of clapping in worship, consider three things:

A.      The Indisputable Fact

Is there any evidence that anyone ever clapped in the context of the formal worship of God in the Old or New Testament?  The simple answer to that question is no!  There is no mention of it with regard to New Testament worship simply because there is no reference to clapping at all in the New Testament.  There is no mention of it with regard to Old Testament worship.  None of the 12 texts we looked is speaking of a formal worship context.  Those are the facts of the case; and the facts are not in dispute!

B.      The Disputed Text

One text is sometimes raised in defense of clapping in worship.  It is Psalm 41:1: “O clap your hands, all peoples; Shout to God with the voice of joy.”  This text is brought forward as proof for clapping in worship.  How shall we think about it?

This call is not a specific call for the nations to clap their hands in the context of formal worship.  This is a general (and poetically stated) call for all the nations to praise God.

This call, if urged as a command to clap in worship, proves far too much.  Why?  If this text obligates Christians to clap in New Covenant worship, then the failure to clap is sin.  It is a violation of the clear command of God for New Covenant worship.  The advocates of clapping with whom I am familiar, while they wish to argue for clapping as almost a duty, are not willing to say that Christians are in sin for not clapping in worship.

This command was not implemented in the formal worship of the Old Covenant.  There is no record or instance of clapping in the formal worship of the Old Testament.

This command, if command it is, so far as we have any record, was never practiced in New Testament worship.  There is no mention of clapping in the New Testament at all.

Psalm 47:1 is a poetically stated call for all the world to praise God.  The clapping mentioned is simply a vivid, poetic way of expressing the call for that praise.  We must not hyper-focus on clapping in a verse that has for its main point a call to universal praise of God.

Clapping is mentioned simply because it is one way in which human beings sometimes expressed the strong emotion of joy.  At most, this text, along with the other texts we have seen, suggests that clapping may sometimes be permitted as a natural and spontaneous circumstance of the joy that should characterize our worship of God.

C.      The Necessary Rules

The above study of clapping in the Bible dictates, however, that certain rules be recognized which must regulate clapping in worship.  If we admit that clapping may sometimes occur in worship as a natural expression of joyful praise, then there are certain necessary rules which must be remembered.

It must, firstly, be spontaneous—not manipulated or commanded.  Clapping is not a part or element of worship.  It is at most a permissible circumstance of worship.  It must never be required or commanded of God’s people.  They must not be berated, criticized, or reprimanded for not practicing it.  I can tell you that you ought to say amen.  It is a required part of worship.  I cannot tell you that you ought to clap.

It must, secondly, be God-centered—not applause for men, but joyful praise to God.  When and if clapping spontaneously occurs in formal worship, the God-centered or theocentric nature of worship must control its use and rationale.  It must definitely not be applause for men, but an expression of joyful praise to God.

It must, thirdly, be appropriate—not disruptive or attention-seeking. It is certainly possible to conceive of a situation where clapping is so lacking in the fruit of the Spirit which is self-control that it becomes disruptive to the worship of God.  It is also possible in today’s context especially that some might clap in a way that is downright attention-seeking.  This would be, of course, profoundly contrary to the God-centered-ness of true worship and, thus, profoundly wrong.

Pin It on Pinterest