|
 Dear
Bro. Turner:
How
does one know what is "just a custom" (as, "holy
kiss" 1CO. 16:20)) and what is unalterably commanded?
Reply:
All
communication (writing, speaking, hand-waving, etc.) is done in an
historic (social) setting, and is influenced thereby. People who
question this have given too little attention to what influences their
own way of saying things. The Scriptures were given in a limited,
historic setting, and (initially) to the people of that period. This
influenced particulars-the Application of truth to that time.
When
Peter wished to contrast "outward adornment" with godliness,
he cited examples common to that period: "plaiting the hair,"
"wearing gold." Had he been a part of and writing to some
different culture, he may have said, "filing teeth" or
"wearing decorative bones." The point was not to forbid
"apparel" or decorations per se, but to stress inner beauty.
Paul
did not command Timothy (or other evangelists) to "drink
wine." He commanded (if we must put it that way) to take care of
himself. The "wine for thy stomach’s sake" is the result of
the influence of first century medical practices upon the form and
content of communications then. (I surmise, due to the setting of the
statement, Paul may have been warning Timothy against asceticism
-extreme self-denial (over-righteousness) with mystic overtones.) The
"holy kiss" enjoins warm, non-sensual greetings, as we might
give a genuine (not simply a cold
|
|
and formal) handshake. We "wash one another’s
feet" as we humbly serve one another, in this or in many other
ways (1TI.5: 23; JOH.13: 1-f).
But
how does one determine the difference in specifics intended for all
time (as baptism, Lord’s Supper, etc.) and practices which were
but first century applications of principles? Sometimes this is
indicated by the type of arguments made. Paul (1 CO.11:) states a
universal truth re. the relation of man and woman; but indicates the
manifestation of this (the covered head) was custom (vs. 16). He
appeals to their sense of shame (vs. 6), to their judgement of what
-was comely or fitting (vs. 1-3), to what nature taught them (vs.
14), and to uniformity of practice among churches (vs. 16). These
enforced head covering in that culture, but lose their force in an
entirely different culture.
Another
means of differentiating essentials and incidentals is to look for
Bible stated significance. What if someone proved that Jesus used
one container only in instituting the Lord’s Supper? The
Scriptures attach no significance to the container, so it is no
binding precedent. Suppose the early saints did meet in an upper
room. It is not commanded, nor is any significance attached, by
example or inference, hence no precedent. On the other hand,
significance is given the action of baptism (ROM.6: 4), and
particular elements of the Supper, etc.
This
is not offered as a complete "set of rules" but will, I
trust, put us on the right track. Too often we have dealt (?) with
this problem by simply declaring what was important.
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
