In the midst of this debate, I came across an interesting passage from Hughes Oliphant Old on how the Puritans handled the public reading of Scripture:

The Puritans became more and more critical of “dumb reading,” of the simple reading of a Gospel or Epistle from the lectionary without comment. They no doubt felt they could do that at home. When the Puritans were able to shape the service of worship, the practice grew up of reading a chapter of the Old Testament and a chapter of the New Testament and commenting on the readings as they were read. Later in the service there was a sermon on a text drawn from still another portion of Scripture. It was not that the Puritans saw little value in simply reading the Scriptures. This was one of the distinctions between family worship and the worship of the congregation. At family worship the reading of the Scripture lesson was not supposed to be explained or commented upon. That was the responsibility of the minister of the Word. When the congregation was assembled and a minister of the Word was available, then they expected more than the simple reading of the lesson.1

I find two points from this paragraph especially interesting.

First, the Puritan view elevates the function of the public reading of Scripture above private or family readings of Scripture because they expected that the minister would give an explanation of the Scripture passage that was read. The PCA’s Book of Church Order (BCO) explicitly affirms this practice:

How large a portion shall be read at once is left to the discretion of every minister; and he may, when he thinks it expedient, expound any part of what is read; always having regard to the time, that neither reading, singing, praying, preaching, nor any other ordinance, be disproportionate the one to the other; nor the whole rendered too short, or too tedious. (BCO 50-4)

The practice of the Puritans seems to suggest, however, that expounding what is read should be the rule rather than the exception.

Second, this passage from Old helps to explain part of the reason that the Puritans so completely understood that only pastors/teachers could read the word publicly (Westminster Larger Catechism (1647), #156; Westminster Directory for Publick Worship (1645), “Of the Public Reading of the Holy Scriptures”; Form of Presbyterial Church-Government (1645), “Pastors”). Specifically, they expected their pastors to expound what was being read.

Thus, the act of publicly reading Scripture was more closely tied to preaching and teaching than we might initially think. Indeed Paul speaks of these three acts seamlessly in 1 Timothy 4:13: “Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.” Then, in the very next verse, he ties those functions to ordination: “Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you” (1 Tim. 4:14).

While the Holy Spirit can speak immediately through the Word of God, the Puritan practice of expounding what is read also seems to be the good and necessary consequence of the question of the Ethiopian eunuch: “How can I [understand what I am reading], unless someone guides me?” (Acts 8:31).

Subscribe now

Some of the Old Testament’s instructions for our tongues are clear and absolute, as in the Ninth Commandment: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Ex. 20:16). Or, many stories vividly warn us about the painful consequences of lying, blame-shifting, manipulating, complaining, murmuring, bearing false witness, and foolish oaths and vows (e.g., Gen. 3:1–5, 10–13; 20:1–13; 27; 29:23–25; 34:13–31; 39:13–20; Num. 11:1–3; 13:32–14:37; Judg. 14:15–18; 16:1–21; 1 Sam. 14:24–46; 2 Sam. 11:6–25; 15). Other uses of the tongue, however, are more difficult to know how to apply in our speech (e.g., Gen. 42:7–25; 44:1–17; Ex. 1:19–21; Josh. 2:1–21; Judg. 4:18; 1 Sam. 21; 27). Further, the Old Testament sometimes speaks in riddles, mysteries, and proverbs that do not give categorical rules, but principles that require wise discretion (e.g., Prov. 26:4–5).

In this article, we will reflect upon the Old Testament’s theology of the tongue, which insists that God’s Word must shape our words. In the first part, we will give particular attention to the foundational story of Genesis 1–3. Then, we will draw out several practical principles of wisdom for the tongue from the whole Old Testament.

Subscribe now

An Old Testament Theology of the Tongue (Gen. 1–3)

The Old Testament proclaims that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom (Job 28:28; Ps. 111:10; Prov. 1:7; 9:10). Negatively, the fear of the Lord teaches us how not to speak: “The fear of the Lord is to hate evil:…the froward [perverse] mouth, do I hate” (Prov. 8:13). Positively, the fear of the Lord also teaches us to pattern our speech after God’s speech, from whose “mouth cometh knowledge and understanding” (Prov. 2:6). 

While the whole Old Testament explores these issues, the opening chapters of Genesis poignantly summarize the basic issues at stake. Genesis 1 establishes that God’s Word is powerful and creative, giving life and blessing. He creates by a simple word of command (“Let there be…”; Gen. 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26). Then, he blesses what he creates (Gen. 1:22, 28; 2:3). To this day, God’s words continue to “do good to him that walketh uprightly” (Mic. 2:7). As creatures made in God’s image, our Creator has given us the capacity to resemble him in our speech (Gen. 1:26–27). This does not mean that our words possess the same authority as God’s Word (Job 38:2; 40:3–5; 42:1–6). Nevertheless, God has endowed our words with power resembling his own, so that our words may be health to others (Prov. 12:18; 13:17; 16:24).

Genesis 2 reveals how God’s Word distinguishes between good and evil. God commands Adam to eat from every tree in the garden of Eden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:9, 16–17). By this, God sets the example that our own words should also distinguish rightly between good and evil: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil” (Isa. 5:20; Prov. 17:15; 24:24–26). 

In Genesis 3, we discover that God had honestly sought to protect life by his warning that death would be the penalty for sin: “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:17b). Too late, Adam and Eve learned the folly of disregarding God’s Word (Gen. 3:7–24). Similarly, we speak wisely when we warn others of spiritual danger that they do not yet see: “The law of the wise is a fountain of life, to depart from the snares of death” (Prov. 13:14).

Why, then, did Adam and Eve depart from God’s Word? Tragically, another figure arose to challenge God’s wisdom: “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made” (Gen. 3:1). The word “subtil” appears elsewhere to describe the “crafty” tongues of the wicked (Job 5:12; 15:5), as well as the “prudent” wisdom of the godly (Prov. 12:16, 23; 13:16; 14:8, 15, 18; 22:3; 27:12). The serpent’s “wisdom,” however, is counterfeit. The Bible calls it “folly.” 

So, the serpent speaks to seduce Adam and Eve to doubt God’s Word in three ways. First, the serpent questions God’s goodness: “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” (Gen. 3:1). Second, the serpent denies the consequences of sin: “Ye shall not surely die” (Gen. 3:4). Third, the serpent promises blessings for disobedience: “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:5). Thus, the book of Proverbs repeatedly warns us not to be fooled by smooth, flattering, and seductive words (Prov. 2:12–19; 5:1–4; 6:23–24).

Jesus explained the close connection between the devil’s lies and murder: “He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it” (John 8:44). By lying to Adam and Eve, the devil murdered the whole human race. Thus, we must pray for protection from the wicked who similarly “have sharpened their tongues like a serpent; adders’ poison is under their lips” (Ps. 140:3). 

The great problem of Adam and Eve’s original sin, though, is that we are not only victims of the seductive, flattering, false, and murderous speech of others. We also become perpetrators of false speech. The Fall poisoned the tongues of every human being born in the line of Adam. God’s Law demands that we speak in holiness as his image-bearers, but our tongues too often resemble the false speech of the serpent. It is only through faith in Jesus Christ that we receive forgiveness for the sins of our tongues and strength to put away corrupt communication, so that we may begin to speak in edifying words that “minister grace unto the hearers” (Eph. 4:29).

Practical Old Testament Wisdom for the Tongue

Toward the end of conforming our words to God’s Word, the Old Testament is an invaluable resource. Let us now consider seven practical principles of Old Testament wisdom for transforming the tongue.

First, we must fix it in our minds that God will judge our speech (Jer. 9:3, 5, 8–9; Mic. 6:12–13). Often, people imagine that God cannot see or judge their wicked words: “God hath forgotten: he hideth his face; he will never see it” (Ps. 10:7, 11); or, “Who shall see them?” (Ps. 64:3, 5); or, “How doth God know? and is there knowledge in the most High?” (Ps. 73:8, 11). The Lord, however, both sees and judges: “But God shall shoot at them with an arrow; suddenly shall they be wounded. So they shall make their own tongue to fall upon themselves” (Ps. 64:7–8; 50:19–21; 1 Kgs. 21).

Second, we must recognize that our speech is binding: “When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the Lord thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee” (Deut. 23:21; Judg. 11:29–40; Eccl. 5:4–7). Once we have made a promise, we must keep our word (Josh. 9:19; Prov. 6:1–5). The Lord promises to bless the one who “sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not” (Ps. 15:1, 4).

Third, because God will judge us for our binding speech, the Bible teaches that it is often better not to speak at all: “Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few” (Eccl. 5:2; Prov. 10:19; 17:27; 29:11, 20). There is certainly a time to speak, rather than holding our peace (2 Kgs. 7:9; Esth. 4:14; Eccl. 3:7; Prov. 26:4–5); however, silence can make even a fool seem wise (Prov. 17:28).

Fourth, rather than speaking, the Scriptures call us to listen: “The wise in heart will receive commandments: but a prating fool [lit, “a fool of lips”] shall fall” (Prov. 10:8; Prov. 18:2; 21:28). Consequently, we must be careful about what we hear, since as we hear, so we will speak: “He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed” (Prov. 13:20; 17:4; 22:17–18; 1 Kgs. 12:6–11). We should therefore pray that the Lord would give us “the tongue of the learned” that comes from having first listened to God’s Word with humility (Isa. 50:4, 5).

Fifth, when we do speak, our speech should reflect our frailty, rather than boasting over power that we do not really possess: “The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things: Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?” (Ps. 12:3–4; 2 Kgs. 19; Dan. 3:16–18). Therefore, we must not boast about our plans or achievements (Prov. 27:1; Dan. 4:28–37; Jas. 4:13–17). Especially, we must never presume to speak for God: “Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that use their tongues, and say, He saith” (Jer. 23:31). 

Sixth, the proper use for our tongues is to glorify God and to love our neighbors. So, our speech should be “faithful,” “soft,” “wholesome,” “spoken in due season,” “prudent,” “pleasant…, sweet to the soul, and health to the bones,” and “fitly spoken” (Prov. 13:17; 15:1, 4, 23; 16:24; 25:11; 1 Sam. 25:23–35). Further, our words should protect the innocent and vulnerable from the wicked: “Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy” (Prov. 31:9; Prov. 11:9; 12:6; 31:8; Esth. 7:1–6).

Seventh, we must cling to the gospel promise that the same God who created the tongue will teach those who trust in him to speak (Ex. 4:10–12). Through a King who will “reign in righteousness…, the tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly” (Isa. 32:1, 4). When Christ comes, he promises that “the tongue of the dumb sing” (Isa. 35:6) so that, one day, among God’s people, no “deceitful tongue be found in their mouth” (Zeph. 3:13). While we may struggle to tame our tongues today, God himself promises a future when “every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall swear” to the only living God, through Jesus Christ his Son (Isa. 45:23; Phil. 2:10–11).

Conclusion

The Old Testament contains a treasury of wisdom for the tongue. Some parts are immediately clear, while others may remain “hard to be understood” (2 Pet. 3:16) and in need of further reflection. All of it, however, is “written down for our admonition” (1 Cor. 10:11) and “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). Let us therefore study our Bibles in prayer that God would conform our words to his Word, so that our “tongue also shall talk of thy righteousness all the day long” (Ps. 71:24).

Subscribe now

Originally published as: Jacob D. Gerber, “Wisdom for the Tongue (1): An Old Testament Theology of the Tongue,” The Banner of Sovereign Grace Truth 30.6 (2022): 238–39. Republished here with permission.

Pastoral ministry is a true paradox. Pastors must be tough enough to “wage the good warfare” while also remaining gentle enough to resemble “a nursing mother taking care of her children” (1 Tim. 1:18; 1 Thess. 2:7). Our call is to fight off the fierce wolves who would not spare the flock, and also to seek out the lost, bind up the injured, and strengthen the weak (Acts 20:29; Ezek. 34:16). We must act like men and be strong, but not break the bruised reed or quench the smoldering wick (1 Cor. 16:13; Matt. 12:20).

Every sincere pastor knows the difficulty of striking this balance in the heat of spiritual battle. In our sinful flesh, we are quick to pick a fight and, perplexingly, just as quick to retreat into passivity. Yet, as willing as our spirit may be, our flesh is weak—indeed, incapable—of speaking perfect truth in perfect love (Matt. 26:41; Eph. 4:15).

In this article, we will consider weapons for spiritual warfare that the Lord has given toward this end—not weapons of the flesh, but weapons of divine power (2 Cor. 10:4). Specifically, we will explore the Lord’s Prayer as a resource for cultivating paradoxical pastoral piety of fierce humility and meek boldness.

(Read More)

Subscribe now

This article arose from the overflow of my recent sermon on the Lord’s Prayer:

For even more on this topic, check out my sermon notes:

In Matthew 6:1–18, Jesus confronts three forms of the hypocrisy of “practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them” (Matt. 6:1): in giving to the poor (Matt. 6:2–4), in prayer (Matt. 6:5–6), and in fasting (Matt. 6:16–18). After Jesus deals with hypocritical prayer that seeks to be seen by other people, he offers one of the most important side comments ever to have been uttered in Matt. 6:7–15. Here, Jesus teaches us how to pray when we are in secret, instructions that even include our Lord’s Prayer. In the prayer that he teaches, Jesus captures a striking paradox within prayer: we pray to Almighty God as children speaking with our Father.

(Read More)

May the Lord teach us to pray as children coming to our Father in heaven!

Two weeks ago, I preached on Matthew 6:1–18, “Your Father Sees in Secret.” While Jesus talks about the false piety of religious leaders who practiced their righteousness before others in order to be seen (Matt. 6:1), I found it interesting to see that the same kinds of things still happen in our secularistic society.

Here is the introduction from the sermon notes:

Unlike Jesus’ day, we no longer live in a world where alms-giving, public prayer, and fasting gain Christians wide social approval. Indeed, the modern world despises Christians and any outward display of our faith. This does not mean, however, that Jesus’ warnings against false piety marked public pretense are unimportant. On the contrary, we are still in danger of trying to impress other Christians with our spirituality. Furthermore, the world has its own versions of the forms of piety that Jesus addresses here—public philanthropy, public virtue signaling (especially on social media), and the culture of outrage, oppression, and victimization that dominates our society. Even through Christianity isn’t fashionable, people living in this world still yearn desperately to be justified in the court of public opinion. In the never-ending quest to be on the “right side of history,” Jesus’ gospel offers freedom and rest, since God’s economy rewards secret obedience. (Read More)

And here is the full sermon:

Subscribe now

Recent Writing

As a follow-up/summary of my recent sermon on Psalm 50, I wrote an article entitled, “God Has Something to Say in Your Worship Service,” which was recently published at reformation21:

Modern society brims with opportunities for people to get together and talk about something. In meetings, discussion groups, clubs, classes, forums, conferences, rallies, and protests, people gather to discuss matters that are important to them.

It is understandable, then, that we often treat corporate worship services in our local churches as a time for us to get together to talk about God, as though he were not present. For this reason, our worship services sometimes feel like a memorial service for someone who has died, as though we have gathered together to keep God’s memory alive by sharing stories from his life. Yet, if our worship unwittingly conveys the impression that God is absent or even dead, how will unbelievers fall on their faces and worship God, declaring that God is really among us (1 Cor. 14:25)?

The Scriptures correct us by teaching that worship is not where we gather together to speak about God; rather, worship is where God summons us into his presence in order to speak to us. To be sure, we will speak as well, but only as a response to what first God says to us. (Read More)

Have a blessed Lord’s Day tomorrow!

Subscribe now

This week, my sermon was “Love Your Enemies,” from Matthew 5:43–48. This was a challenging text, since the final verse, “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48), summarizes all of Jesus’ teaching on the Law (Matt. 5:17–48).

Here is the introduction to the sermon notes:

In Jesus’ final section in his exposition on the law, our Lord touches on perhaps the most difficult demand of the law: to love our enemies. No longer are we talking about our relationships with those closest to us—our brothers, our sisters, our spouses, and our friends. Now, Jesus says that we must even love our enemies, since our heavenly Father loves his enemies. Here, Jesus draws all of his teaching on the law into one imperative that not only summarizes this section, but the whole of his exposition on the law: be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Read More)

And here is the full sermon:

Subscribe now

Recent Writing

Last week, I published a technical article on the parliamentary rules dealing with minority reports from the PCA’s Committee on Constitutional Business.

This week, I published another article detailing why this procedure is so important for the peace, purity, and unity of our denomination:

This process is important, because it gives the Assembly its full freedom to oversee the procedural accuracy of the Standing Judicial Commission’s (SJC) business. If the final CCB report — whether the original committee report, or a substituted minority report — discovers procedural errors in the operations of the SJC, our Book of Church Order (BCO) enables the Assembly to redress any errors by directing the SJC to retry a case if the Assembly judges such a step to be necessary for justice to be realized in the proceedings of church courts.

In this article, I lay out three reasons for why it is important for the PCA’s General Assembly to protect this procedure within the Church’s polity. (Read More)

Have a blessed Lord’s Day tomorrow!

Subscribe now

This Week’s Sermon

During the sabbatical we visited various churches, and I did not have any role leading in the worship services. It was a strange perspective for me, since I preach and/or lead worship most weeks in the normal course of my pastoral ministry. It led me to do a lot of thinking about what we are all doing while we are gathered for worship—a theme I posted about at the beginning of the summer:

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

The Dialogue of Worship

In 1 Corinthians 14:26–40, Paul seeks to apply everything that he wrote in the first half of the chapter. Paul makes this intention clear by the transitional phrase, “What then, brothers?” (v. 26a). For this reason, Paul’s instructions in the second half of 1 Corinthians 14 are far more practical than the doctrinal instruction Paul gave in the first hal…

Read more

4 years ago · 1 like · Jacob Gerber

I wanted to communicate some of the fruit of that meditation in my first sermon upon returning, so I preached on Psalm 50. Here is the introduction from the sermon notes:

In Psalm 50, God indicts his people for their legalism, and calls them to repentance and renewed worship. In this psalm, God presents his case against his people. It is not that his people have failed to do what God has asked them to do in worship, but that they have failed to worship them in the manner in which he calls them to worship him. God’s charge against Israel is not that they have worshiped other gods beside him (First Commandment), or that they have made for themselves graven images (Second Commandment), but that they have worshiped him in a light, flippant, insincere manner—that is, that they have taken his name as a vain thing (Third Commandment). This text confronts us each and every time we gather for worship, in addition to serving as a preview of the judgment on the last day. In worship, God judges his people. (Read More)

And here is the full sermon:

Subscribe now

Recent Writing

I have two articles to share that I have recently posted elsewhere.

First, at the end of April, I published an article with the Gospel Reformation Network on the issue of the public reading of Scripture at our corporate worship services, entitled, “Who is Permitted to Read the Word Publicly to the Congregation in the PCA?”:

In this article, then, I want to plead with fellow presbyters in the PCA to reclaim the biblical and historically Presbyterian understanding that the public reading of Scripture is an exercise of church authority. Accordingly, I will argue that the Scriptures and our constitution give us sufficient clarity about who is, and who is not, permitted to read the Word publicly. (Read More)

Before reading this article, it may help to read the article about the “Dialogue of Worship” posted above, or to listen to my related sermon on 1 Corinthians 14:26–40.

Second, I published a very technical article on the details of parliamentary procedure related to something that took place at this year’s General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, “Minority Reports, CCB, & the SJC – Part 1: The Parliamentary Rules”:

At the 49th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), the Committee on Constitutional Business (CCB) presented its annual report, which included the results of its review of the minutes of the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC), according to the PCA’s Rules of Assembly Operations (RAO)….

This year, two members of CCB issued a minority report, arguing that they differed from the majority by finding exceptions with respect to the SJC’s handling of Speck v. Missouri Presbytery. The Moderator ruled that this minority report should neither be heard nor moved as a substitute for the Committee’s report, and, upon appeal, the General Assembly narrowly sustained the Moderator’s ruling by a vote of 970-856.

In this article, I will explore the details of the parliamentary rules concerning minority reports to argue that, in my opinion, this ruling was in error. In a future article, I will argue why maintaining this procedure is so important for the health of the PCA. (Read More)

The second part of this article is coming next week, Lord willing, where I will zoom out from the minutiae of parliamentary procedure, in order to see the importance of this particular procedure in our denomination’s overall polity and health.

The Platte Valley Presbytery meets today in Lincoln, NE. Please pray for our proceedings, and pray for me as I have the joy of preaching the devotional this time around.

Have a blessed Lord’s Day tomorrow!

Subscribe now

First, while Paul offers a number of instructions about public worship, he clearly does not offer a comprehensive set of instructions about public worship. This is evident from the fact that Paul begins his practical instructions with the phrase, “When you come together…” (v. 26b). Earlier, Paul used the same word for “come together” five times in 1 Corinthians 11 to write about the church’s “coming together” for the purpose of celebrating the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34). Here, Paul does not even mention the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, which demonstrates that the instructions Paul gives are selective, not exhaustive. Along these lines, we might also note that Paul’s instructions are clearly bound up in the specific critiques for Corinth’s worship, especially where tongues were given primacy over prophecy (1 Cor. 14:1–25) and women were attempting to take the roles and appearances of men in worship (1 Cor. 11:2–16).

Second, Paul is giving instructions for the worship of a church in the age of the apostles, before the completion of the New Testament. After the deaths of the apostles, the spiritual gifts (pneumatika; cf. 1 Cor. 12:1; 14:1) related to prophecy, tongues, and knowledge ceased. Thus, we cannot adhere to the details of what Paul commands here, just as we cannot adhere to the details for worship commanded in the Old Testament book of Leviticus. 

This does not mean, however, that these instructions in 1 Corinthians 14 are of no value for us. On the contrary, these instructions are of great value, but we discover their practical value in the same way that the glean practical value from the book of Leviticus. Specifically, we must separate the specific, immediate issues of this passage from the general principles that are timeless for the worship of God’s people. While the specific issues will always change in the churches of Christ, the general principles remain the same.

In this passage, we see two general principles that we must apply to our worship. The first principle distinguishes between elements and circumstances.1 The elements of worship are what we offer to God, and these are matters regulated by God’s Word as a matter of biblical faithfulness. The circumstances of worship, on the other hand, are how we administer the elements God has commanded us to offer. Therefore, circumstances in worship are issues of biblical wisdom, not biblical faithfulness.

Related:

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

The Regulative Principle of Worship

Note: These are the lecture notes for the sixth class of an 8-week series that I am teaching at Harvest Community Church, called “What Does it Mean to be Presbyterian?” Links to the other class lecture notes may be found at the end of this post…

Read more

4 years ago · Jacob Gerber

Our Dialogue with God in Worship

With this basic distinction between the fixed elements of worship on one side, and the flexible circumstances concerning worship on the other side, let us now consider the specific instructions Paul gives to the Corinthians for public worship. A close reading of this passage helps to recognize that decisions about circumstances are not entirely flexible. As Paul discusses a number of circumstantial issues concerning public worship at Corinth, he reflects a second principle that remains true for our own worship today: worship is a dialogue between God and his people.

As churches seek to give order to their worship, there may be some variation from church to church; however, Paul organizes everything he says in this passage around an inviolable principle that worship is a dialogue between God and us. Worship is an activity where God speaks to us in his word and sacraments, and we speak back to God by prayer and singing praises. Although some of the specific forms of God’s speech may have looked different in the earliest church than they do today, the general principle remains the same.2

Subscribe now

Our Submissive Silence in Worship

In addition to the principle that worship is a dialogue, Paul adds a corresponding principle that must guide our worship: We participate in worship not by self-promoting speech, but by submissive silence. While Paul focused the first half of the chapter on what kind of speech should take place (clear, intelligible prophecy, rather than incomprehensible, unintelligible foreign tongues), now Paul talks about the significance of silence in the congregation. Paul teaches this explicitly through three commands about who should keep silent, and when (v. 28, 30, 34).

Those commands are not the only places where Paul urges silence, however. Notice also that Paul places clear limitations on the number of speakers, along with the requirements that the speakers take turns speaking, “one by one” (v. 27, 29a, 30–31). So, when someone else is speaking, everyone else should be silent. The biblical emphasis for public worship is not that we should provide ample space for every person to speak, but to take care so that God’s word is not distorted by an endless parade of speakers wanting to offer their own thoughts, or by the clamor of people trying to speak over one another. When someone is speaking God’s word to the congregation, all others should be silent.

It is in this connection that we can understand why Paul also adds a limitation on the speakers themselves, restricting individual speech in public worship to qualified, gifted men only. Paul explained in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 that God has given men the responsibility for openly and visibly declaring God’s word in public, and that their appearance without a head covering should reinforce this activity.3 For this reason, Paul insisted that women should neither take up the activity of men (public prophesying and praying), nor the appearance of men (without a head covering) in public worship.4 Here in v. 33b–35, Paul is saying the same thing: in public worship, women should remain silent throughout. If, however, all the rest of the congregation must remain silent when any one (man) is speaking God’s word to the congregation, this does not represent an overly burdensome restriction. Women are not excluded from worship—they simply join all others in the congregation who listen silently when any one (man) is speaking God’s word to the congregation.

Finally, we should notice Paul’s multiple emphases on the importance of an attitude of submissiveness from worshipers. Let’s consider these instructions from the broadest to the narrowest scope. First, and most broadly, Paul addresses the church in Corinth as a whole. So, Paul teaches that each individual church should submissively conform their practices to what is done “in all the churches of the saints” (v. 33b). Then, Paul rebukes any congregation who arrogantly acts as though the word of God came from them, or reached them alone (v. 36). Second, Paul addresses the leaders in the church. To those who would speak in tongues, Paul insists that they must submissively refrain from speaking publicly if there is no one to interpret (v. 28). To the prophets, Paul insists that each prophet should submit to the judgment of the other prophets who will weigh what the first speaks (v. 29), so that “the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets” (v. 32). Furthermore, Paul says that one prophet should keep silent if a revelation is made to another prophet sitting there (v. 31). Third, Paul addresses the women in the congregation, reminding them that they should “be in submission, as the Law also says” (v. 34). We should note that the word for “submission” (ὑποτασσέσθωσαν, hupotassesthōsan) here is the same verb Paul uses to describe the subjection of the spirits of prophets to the prophets (ὑποτάσσεται, hupotassetai; v. 32). Fourth, Paul insists that each individual must submit to Paul’s instructions as “a command of the Lord” (v. 37), so that if “anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized” (v. 38). 

In our culture, the instructions for women to submit silently in public worship becomes such a lightning rod of controversy that it distracts our attention from the context of the rest of the passage. Yes, women should worship in silent submission in church, but so must everyone else who is not speaking God’s word at any given moment. Even men gifted in tongues or prophesy must be submissively silent when another man is speaking. All the rest of the congregation may speak together, with one voice, in the responsive readings, in prayers, and in singing.

Our Participation in Worship

What value is there in silence, though? Kenneth Campbell offers a breathtaking defense of silence as the highest manner of worship, made possible only by the provisions of the new covenant:

Silence is indicative of the internalized character of worship. Worship in the age of covenantal fulfillment is in “spirit and in truth” (John 4:23-24). With the church’s baptism in the Spirit (Acts 2:33, I Corinthians 12:13) a new dimension and a new dynamic was added to the exercise of worship. The impersonal externalism of the old covenant worship was replaced, because of the redemptive accomplishments of Christ, with the personal intimacy of the internalized new covenant worship. With access to the throne of grace opened by the high priestly work of Christ (Hebrews 10:19-22) and with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 3:16-17), a new interaction with God through His Word has been made possible (I Corinthians 2:12-13). The silence of worship involves this very active interaction with God. As the voice of God is heard through the reading and the preaching of the Word or is seen through the elements of the sacraments, there is an expected internal consideration and response. The activity of worship is going on in silence in this meeting between God and His people. Indicative of this internalized worship are the words of I Corinthians 14:28, “but if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.” The context of these words is corporate worship….It is helpful to notice that Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 insofar as they are addressing worship (whether private or corporate) emphasize the internalized nature of worship. Even the outward form of worship, for instance singing, is of consequence only when it is from within, from the heart. The qualifications of these passages “making melody with your heart” and “with thankfulness in your hearts to God” demonstrate that the essence of worship is internal. Silence participates in this essence of worship just as much, if not more, than the audible expressions of worship.5

It is helpful to tease out the progress of worship in redemptive history a bit further. In the sacrifices, rites, and ceremonies of the law of Moses, the people experienced worship as something that was external and impersonal. They watched from afar the worship that the priests offered on their behalf—at least, they watched until the priest disappeared into the tabernacle or temple to finish the rest of the ceremonies prescribed for worship, completely out of the view of the common people. 

Nevertheless, while the sacrificial system remained in place until Christ offered himself up as a once-for-all sacrifice for his people, G. Duncan Lowe observes that, during that period of time, the compilation of the Psalms of David represented a major step forward in the history of the worship of God’s people toward a much more internal and personal experience:

The nature of the change is that the relatively impersonal system of law and worship that God had previously established through Moses now becomes something with a definite personal character through David. This is a progress in God’s grace. God is becoming more and more personally recognizable among his people through His chosen representative. This progress is nowhere near complete in David, but it does indicate the kind of fulfillment that would eventually be accomplished in the person of Jesus.6

With the writing of the Psalms, worshipers were given words to guide their own personal worship. Worship was becoming less of something the priest did for them, and more of something that they could do internally, from their hearts. This trajectory finds its fulfillment in the submissive silence of new covenant worshipers during public worship as they give careful attention to the word of God in spirit and in truth.

Why Silence? For our Good, and for God’s Glory

Paul is not recommending submissive silence in worship arbitrarily. Rather, he roots these recommendations for the circumstances concerning worship in two values, which were summarized in the first and last command given in this passage. First, we submissive silence allows “all things [to be] done for building up” (v. 26). In v. 31, Paul insists that even the prophets must prophesy one by one, “so that all may learn and all be encouraged.” The word for “learn” (μανθάνωσιν, manthanōsin) is the verb from which we get the noun “disciple” (μαθητής, mathētēs), which means “learner.” Then, the word for “encouraged” (παρακαλῶνται, parakalōntai) is a word Paul used earlier in v. 3 about the benefits of prophesy. This word can refer to two kinds of “encouragement,” either the encouragement of exhortation, or of comfort. Worship builds up as people learn the word of God, in order to be exhorted to believe it and obey it, and to be comforted by its promises.

Second, Paul insists that submissive silence allows worship to be “done decently and in order” (v. 40). The reason for doing things decently and in order is partially to build up the church, but ultimately to reflect accurately the character of God: “For God is not a God of confusion but of peace” (v. 33). When everyone is clamoring to speak individually, talking over one another, and when those whom God has not qualified and gifted to deliver his speech to the public congregation, then we dishonor God by suggesting that he is a God of confusion. When we worship decently and in order, however, we honor and glorify the God of peace.

The world chafes at this passage of Scripture because the world understands the act of speaking as power, and the act of silence as oppression. The word of God reframes this teaching for us away from notions of human power into the proper framework of divine authority. The question is not, “How do we let everyone do everything, whenever they want, so that everyone has equal privileges?” The question is rather, “How has God called us to administer his authority, and how do we all submit to that authority?” Or, to adhere more closely to the language of this passage, “How has God instructed us to build up the church in worship in a way that glorifies him as the God of peace?”

Implications for Modern Worship

Let us close our discussion of 1 Corinthians 14 by listing out a few implications from these principles for our worship today, on the other side of the age of the apostles. First, all worship, but especially public worship, should be a dialogue between God and his people. This is why God’s word must take center stage in our worship, so that we devote our worship to the action of listening carefully to the voice of God in worship. Then, this is why we must respond by speaking his word back to him in responsive readings, in prayer, and in singing. Worship is not whatever we want to make it; worship is a dialogue between God and his people.

Second, we must continue to limit leadership of the public reading, praying, and preaching of God’s word to gifted and qualified men. In the age of the apostles, the gifting of leaders was clear according to whether they could speak prophetically or not. The qualification of leaders was determined as the other prophets weighed what every prophet spoke (v. 29), for the spirits of prophets are subject to other prophets who would compare what any given prophet was saying with the rest of what God had revealed in his word (cf. Deut. 18:20–22; 1 Thess. 5:20–21; 1 John 4:1). Today, this principle will ordinarily mean limiting worship leadership to those who have been officially recognized as gifted and qualified men by ordination and installation to the office of elder, and especially those who hold the office of teaching elders. In our denomination, the process toward ordination includes thorough training, evaluation, and examination by other elders in our local congregation’s Session (for ruling elders) or in the wider, regional Presbytery (for pastors). We want to assess whether men aspiring to the office of elder are gifted to engage in the ministry of the word, whether they qualified by their conduct and their ability to teach pure biblical doctrine (1 Tim. 3:1–7).

The necessity for this thorough process of vetting elders who will lead us in worship is reflected in this passage. Namely, it is a serious thing to act as God’s voice to God’s people by declaring his word, since to do so is to establish the rule of Christ’s reign in the congregation. Paul touches on these ideas when he writes, “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching” (1 Tim. 5:17). The ministry of the word—especially by preaching and teaching—is nothing less than ruling in Christ’s church. The implication, of course, is that this rule may not be abused by binding the consciences of believers with human doctrines and commandments. Rather, to lead in public worship is to speak on behalf of God to the people by God’s word, and to represent the people before God by leading the congregation in prayer.

Third, we must all fully participate in worship by submissive silence. Whenever we are not the single person speaking God’s voice to the congregation at any given point in the worship service, we must submit ourselves silently to the word of God as our act of worship. Certainly, we must be active in mind and in spirit to listen to, consider, believe, and obey the word of God, but we should do so in silence. This is true at all times for women and for most men, but the exact same requirement is true even for elders whenever they are not acting as God’s voice.7 Just as the prophets had to be silent while another was speaking (v. 30–31), so elders must be submissively silent when another is reading, preaching, or teaching.

Speaking personally as a pastor who often does bear the responsibility to speak with God’s voice by reading, preaching, and teaching God’s word, I would note that I experience some of the greatest freedom in worship when I can be seated in the congregation and listen to someone else speak God’s words to me. In those moments, I do not have the mental, emotional, and spiritual strain of trying to speak God’s voice with clarity, but only the joy of simple, silent submission to the word of God. It is a joy to lead God’s people in worship, but my greatest joy must always remain in my personal, silent, submission to God’s word. Without the latter, I cannot properly do the former.

Subscribe now

Postscript: This article was originally published across two sets of sermon notes for two sermons I preached in 2020 on 1 Corinthians 14:26–40: “Decently And In Order” and “The Dialogue Of Worship.” Here is the related sermon:

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

How to Fight Temptation (Part 1): Satan's Scouting Report

In war, an accurate scouting report can save your life. Knowing how your enemy will attack helps you to formulate a plan to give you the best opportunity for success. Our struggle, however, is not against flesh and blood on the battlefield. Instead, our struggle is against the terrible power of Satan and his demonic army of spiritual forces. This is abou…

Read more

8 years ago · Jacob Gerber

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

Five Practical Strategies to Fight Temptation (Part 2)

In the previous article, I offered a scouting report of Satan’s tactics in temptation from the Scriptures: In this article, we will walk through five practical strategies for fighting temptation. Satan’s Scouting Report (Brief Review) To summarize the previous article, we identified a specific pattern of how Satan tempts us to sin…

Read more

8 years ago · Jacob Gerber

Beyond these, we should also notice that Jesus’ manner of responding is just as important as the content. Unlike Eve, Jesus does not enter into a dialogue with Satan, debating and reasoning with him about the boundaries and limitations of obedience. In Satan’s debate with Eve, the point of contention almost seems to revolve around the question, “How much could I do before sinning?” (Gen. 3:1–5).

In stark contrast with this, Jesus utters hardly anything in his own temptation beyond the words of the Bible: “It is written….Again it is written….Be gone, Satan! For it is written….” (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10). The only time Jesus adds new words to the Scriptures, he directly commands Satan to leave his presence.

What should we learn from our Savior’s posture toward temptation?

The Danger of Entering into Temptation

First, we should discern from this just how dangerous temptation is. The Puritan John Owen (1616–1683) has an invaluable treatise about this subject, called Of Temptation: The Nature and Power of It. In it, he gives an incisive definition of what it means to “fall into temptation” (1 Tim. 6:9).

While Owen observes that all of us (Jesus included) must be tempted, he carefully shows that it is a different thing to enter into temptation. Jesus warns us explicitly about the dangers of entering into temptation twice: (1) when he teaches us to pray that God might “lead us not into temptation” (Matt. 6:13), and (2) when he urges us to “watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation” (Matt. 26:41).

Owen writes this:

When we suffer a temptation to enter into us, then we “enter into temptation.” While it knocks at the door we are at liberty; but when any temptation comes in and parleys [“discusses (especially with an enemy)”] with the heart, reasons with the mind, entices and allures the affections, be it a long or a short time, do it thus insensibly and imperceptibly, or do the soul take notice of it, we “enter into temptation.”1

So, Jesus’ temptation was significantly different from ours. He was tempted, but he did not enter into his temptation in the way that we do. That is, Satan truly presented Christ opportunities to sin, but our Lord’s mind and affections were not in the least entangled in the temptation.

Again, Owen writes:

It is true, our Savior was tempted; but yet his temptations are reckoned among the evils that befell him in the days of his flesh—things that came on him through the malice of the world and the prince thereof. He did not willfully cast himself into temptation, which he said was “to tempt the Lord our God” (Matt. 4:7); as, indeed, willingly to enter into temptation is highly to tempt God….Christ had only the suffering part of temptation when he entered into it; we have also the sinning part. When the prince of this world came to Christ, he had “no part in him” [John 14:30]; but when he comes to us, he has so in us….We never come off like Christ. Who of us “enter into temptation” and is not defiled?2

Matthew vividly depicts how Jesus is utterly unmoved by his temptation in the way that Jesus speaks virtually nothing except Scripture in response to Satan.

By contrast, Eve talked a great deal as she contemplated the temptation before her. With each turn in the conversation, we can see her entering more deeply into this temptation—considering, contemplating, and calculating whether she might, after all, eat the forbidden fruit. When we get to this point, we have already lost the battle, regardless of whether we are able to resist the fullest expression of our sin.

Jesus refused to give sin any such ground. We must seek to do likewise.

Subscribe now

Satan is Relentless

Second, we should brace ourselves with the recognition of how utterly relentless Satan is when he tempts us. We should not celebrate when we succeed for a moment, since Satan is endlessly undeterred. John Calvin writes, “God intended, I have no doubt, to exhibit in the person of his Son, as in a very bright mirror, how obstinately and perseveringly Satan opposes the salvation of men.”3

In this, we should remember that Satan is so blinded in his stubborn rebellion as to believe that he can cast Almighty God from his throne. How much more will he stubbornly, relentlessly come after us when he knows that he very frequently will succeed in leading us to succumb to temptation?

Because of Satan’s relentless attacks, we must keep all the more clarity about the fact that we cede the upper ground by reasoning with him. Satan cannot be reasoned with, and reasoning with him gives him more rope that he will use to hang us.

Make No Provision for the Flesh, but Take up Scripture

Third, we must see how Jesus makes absolutely no provision for the flesh (Rom. 13:14). Jesus does not try to accommodate sin, to compromise with sin, or to coddle sin. Rather, he flatly rejects it utterly from beginning to end.

Instead, Jesus takes up the provision of the Word of God. As John Calvin writes, “Christ uses Scripture as his shield: for this is the true way of fighting, if we wish to make ourselves sure of the victory. With good reason does Paul say, that, ‘the sword of the Spirit is the word of God,’ and enjoin us to ‘take the shield of faiths’ (Ephesians 6:16,17.)”4

Reasoning with Satan betrays an open posture toward following his schemes and designs. Jesus admits no discussion, but declines the temptation with a decisive appeal to Scripture. By this, Jesus intimates that God has spoken, so that nothing more needs to be said. This is a closed posture toward temptation—the only godly posture toward sin that we can take.

Conclusion

In view of temptation’s danger, Satan’s relentlessness, and the gracious provision of Scripture, let us stand firm against the devil’s lies.

As the Apostle Peter writes:

[6] Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, [7] casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you. [8] Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. [9] Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world. [10] And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you. [11] To him be the dominion forever and ever. Amen. (1 Peter 5:6–11 ESV)

Subscribe now

4

Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 1:214.

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

Jesus Forbids Even Unintentional Lust (Matt. 5:27–28)

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus offers his authoritative teaching on the law. Through this section, we find Jesus arguing against the legalism of the scribes and the Pharisees—that is, the legalism that relaxed the infinitely high standards of the law (Matt. 5:19–20…

Read more

4 years ago · 1 like · Jacob Gerber

In view of the serious nature of sexual sin, Jesus urges extreme measures: “If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell” (Matt. 5:29–30).

This is a challenging message because Jesus’ meaning is so clear: we must do whatever it takes to avoid the sin of adultery. It would be better even to cut off members of the body rather than be thrown, body and soul, into hell forever.

Still, this passage always raises the major question: is Jesus really calling us to mutilate our bodies for the sake of the kingdom? There are two unsatisfying ways of answering this question.

Bad Interpretation #1: “Don’t Take it Literally”

The first unsatisfying way to interpret this passage is simply to insist on a non-literal interpretation: “The point of these admonitions is clear without pressing for a literal understanding of the words.”1 This approach seems to make some sense in that it relieves the difficulty of such a horrifying duty.

This approach does not work well, though, when we remember the overall point that Jesus is making throughout this section: the requirements of the law reach infinitely further than any of us would imagine. If it is true that anger renders us liable to the death penalty (Matt. 5:22), is it so outlandish to believe that we should rather cut out our eyes and cut off our hands rather than go to hell?

We cannot smooth out this passage simply by wishing away its offensiveness. We need a better explanation for what Jesus is saying than to simply wave the difficulties away as “non-literal.”

Subscribe now

Bad Interpretation #2: “Literally Mutilate Your Body”

Still, it is also an unsatisfying interpretation of this passage to do precisely what Jesus suggests here. We never read in the Bible anywhere else of people gouging out their eyes to prevent themselves from lusting.

In the only passage that comes even close to suggesting such an action, Paul commends the people of Galatia for their willingness to gouge out their eyes for his sake—but with an acknowledgement that it would not have helped anything (“if possible”), and that they did not ultimately do such a thing (“you would have”; Gal. 4:15).

Clearly, the application of what Jesus says is not for us to gouge out our eyes or to cut off our hands. What, then, should we do with this passage?

The Literal Sense of Matt. 5:29–30: Hyperbole

To begin, while it is not satisfying to label this as “non-literal,” it is right to recognize that the literal (i.e., plain, natural) sense of this passage is a form of speech called hyperbole.

As hyperbole, the meaning is “that whatever hinders us from yielding that obedience to God which he requires in his law, ought to be cut off.”2 It is here, however, that Jesus is pressing us to think through what must be cut off in order to eliminate hindrances from obedience to God.

If it were possible to eliminate the sin of lust by cutting out our right eye, or by cutting off our right hand, wouldn’t that be a sensible thing to do?: “No man hesitates to have a virulently diseased part of his body amputated by the surgeon in order that he may not lose his life.”3

The question, of course, is not whether we would amputate gangrenous sin before it spread to kill the whole body. The question is whether the amputation of a member of the body would effectively accomplish that goal.

Eyes and Hands Don’t Cause Sin

Of course, as Jesus intends us to see, such an action would not solve our problems, since it is “quite possible to be blind or crippled and still lust.”4 Jesus may even be hinting at this conclusion in the way he advocates for cutting out/off only the right eye and the right hand, since the left eye and the left hand would still be capable of leading us into sin all by themselves.5 As Jesus made clear in v. 28, the problem of lust is not generated by the body, but in the heart.

I think John Nolland is on the right track, then, when he writes this:

But perhaps the question of literalism is not quite the right one. The challenge is to go to whatever extreme are necessary to eliminate sin. By taking up dramatic and extreme instances, the text urges such a level of seriousness about avoiding sin that there will be unrestrained commitment to use all possible means to avoid it (with no particular interest in distinguishing between strategies that relate to the inner life, the physical body, or the arrangement of the external circumstances of life). The goal is what is important here, not the means.6

While it is unhelpful to label this passage as “non-literal,” it is fair to ask whether a literal application is what Jesus (literally) intends. So, when we recognize that the proposed solution would not solve the problem, we see that Jesus is making two points in a deeply profound way: (1) we must do everything possible to avoid sin; and (2) bodily discipline—or even mutilation—cannot ultimately solve our problem, since the true roots of sin go all the way down into the heart.

It is with the heart that Jesus insists we must deal, not the body alone.

The Broken Body of Christ

Of course, while we cannot heal our hearts by the mutilation of our own bodies, we must never forget that Jesus came to heal our hearts through the mutilation of his own body. Gouging out our eyes, or cutting off our hands, could never cleanse the impurities of our hearts; however, Jesus’ broken body and shed blood is the only way to purify our souls.

Jesus came to do whatever it takes to purify our desires, even when it cost him the sacrifice of his own body at the cross. We are washed clean, down to the depths of our concupiscent souls, by the shed blood of our Savior.

Brothers and sisters, “You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So honor God in your body” (1 Cor. 6:20).

Subscribe now

Read More:

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

What Makes Food Different from Sexual Immorality? (1 Cor. 6:13)

In 1 Corinthians 6:13, the Apostle Paul draws a contrast between food and sexual immorality: “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. …

Read more

7 years ago · Jacob Gerber

6

John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, ed. I. Howard Marshall and Donald A. Hagner, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005).

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

Beware the Leaven of the Pharisees

In every age, the church must be vigilant to avoid legalism. We must never be like the Pharisees, who “tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger” (Matt. 23:24). God tells us that his commandments are not burdensome (1 John 5:3), but to…

Read more

4 years ago · Jacob Gerber

After showing that the Sixth Commandment against murder forbids even anger at our brothers (Matt. 5:21–26), Jesus begins teaching about the true requirements of the Seventh Commandment against adultery. Similarly, Jesus criticizes the traditional teaching of the rabbis that restricted the requirements of the Seventh Commandment to forbid physical adultery alone.

Much more, Jesus insists that the Seventh Commandment requires “pure and holy affections of the heart.”1 That God forbids coveting our neighbor’s wife should have been clear from the Tenth Commandment (Ex. 20:17; Deut. 5:21).2 What Jesus intends to demonstrate, however, is that even the Seventh Commandment by itself deals with these questions of the heart.3

Result or Purpose?

Against a minimalistic view of the Seventh Commandment, Jesus says, “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:28). To understand the weight of Jesus’ words, we must ask an important question about the grammar of this sentence: is the lust the purpose of the looking, or the result of the looking? That is, does Jesus speak against the man’s lust when it is his purpose/intention for looking, or is Jesus talking about the lust that arises as a result from looking?

Looking with Lustful Intent?

Here, many (most?) commentators take the former sense of purpose, which is captured in the ESV’s translation of the verse: “everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent…”).4 According to this view of purpose, Jesus is condemning the man’s intentional, willful, volitional decision toward lust.

Lust Arising Unintentionally, Apart from Choice?

Two important technical resources, however, argue for the latter sense of result, rather than purpose. The first resource is Murray J. Harris’s widely renowned Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament classifies this as a result, rather than purpose, citing a similar use of πρός (pros) to describe result in John 11:4: “This illness does not lead to [πρός] death.”5 The second resource is the standard New Testament Greek lexicon, by Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich (BDAG), which classifies this phrase as “of the result that follows a set of circumstances (so that),” and translates the phrase as “one who looks at a woman with sinful desire.”6

According to this view of result, Jesus is condemning the lust itself that arises from looking on a woman—even when that lust arises unintentionally, and without any conscious decision of the will.

Matthew 5:28 in the Context of the Sermon on the Mount

How do we choose between the two interpretive options? To begin, we must consider the context of this passage. In the immediate context of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is revealing the full scope of the requirements of the law—requirements that go much further than we realize. So, Jesus taught that anger alone violates the Sixth Commandment (Matt. 5:22), and there is absolutely nothing in the text to suggest that this anger would be a conscious, volitional choice.

The immediate context, then, strongly suggests that Jesus is not only condemning clear, deliberate, willful choices to lust, but also (as with anger) instantaneous reactions of lust that arise from looking at someone who is not our spouse. So, it is not only a violation of the Seventh Commandment to commit physical adultery, and not only a violation when we deliberately stoke lust in our hearts, although both of those would be included.

Beyond that, Jesus is saying that any sexual desire toward someone who is not our spouse is already the sin of adultery—adultery of the heart. So, take a man who is minding his own business, but who happens to look up and sees a woman. If that man begins to experience unbidden, unchosen, and undesired sexual desires toward her rising in his heart, then that man has already sinned.

This, of course, is a heavy standard. How can we justify such a strict view of the the requirements of the law?

Subscribe now

The Doctrine of Concupiscence

To understand the grounds on which Jesus condemns even unintentional lust, we must understand what theologians call the doctrine of concupiscence. Concupiscence is the Latin word for (sinful) desire or lust (concupiscentia), and, in the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible, this is the word that translates this key phrase in our passage: “ad concupiscendum eam” (“unto desiring/lusting after her”). This is also the Latin word that translates the word for “covet” in the Tenth Commandment (“Non concupisces…” [“You shall not covet…”]; Ex. 20:17; Deut. 5:21).

Thus, concupiscence describes sinful desires, or desires that incline toward sin. The question that theologians have debated for centuries has to do with whether concupiscence is in itself is sin, or whether concupiscence does not become sin until the will consents to the sin that concupiscence desires.

Roman Catholic Teaching on Concupiscence

This question was at the heart of the Protestant Reformation. The Roman Catholic Church taught that concupiscence was not sin until the will consented to the desires within our souls. So, at the Council of Trent in 1546, the Roman Catholic Church formalized the view that affirms concupiscence as merely “of sin” and “inclining to sin,” but that rejects any sense that concupiscence is “truly and properly sin”:

But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin.7

Biblical Teaching on Concupiscence

It is astonishing to see the Roman Catholic Church acknowledge that Paul (“the Apostle”) calls concupiscence sin, but then immediately state that the Roman Catholic Church has never understood concupiscence to be sin. One of the passages this council is considering is Romans 7:7: “Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet [Vulg: ‘concupiscentiam’] if that law had not said, ‘You shall not covet [Vulg: ‘Non concupisces’].’”

Paul says that he would not have known the nature of sin unless the law had declared that concupiscence is sin. Thus, the Roman Catholic Church denies the very point that Paul is making about sin! Even more, the Roman Catholic Church is also denying the point of the Tenth Commandment. From the commandments of the Old Testament, to the teaching of the Apostle Paul in the New Testament, the Scriptures are clear: concupiscence is sin, even before a conscious choice.

So, if we let Scripture interpret Scripture, then the context of the whole Bible (not only the context of the Sermon on the Mount) helps us to see the inescapable truth about Jesus’ words: concupiscence is sin, even before a conscious decision to lust.

Concupiscence is Truly and Properly Sin

Moreover, Protestants recognized that if we deny what the Bible says about sin, we cannot understand what the Bible teaches about the gospel. So, echoing the words that the Roman Catholic Church had used to deny that concupiscence is “truly and properly sin,” the Westminster Confession of Faith declares the opposite about the corruption of our nature that manifests itself as concupiscent desires: “This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin” (WCF 6.5).

More recently, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) published a study report on the question of same-sex sexual attraction that explored the implications of this doctrine. In the section on concupiscence, the report stated this:

We affirm that impure thoughts and desires arising in us prior to and apart from a conscious act of the will are still sin.  We reject the Roman Catholic understanding of concupiscence whereby disordered desires that afflict us due to the Fall do not become sin without a consenting act of the will. These desires within us are not mere weaknesses or inclinations to sin but are themselves idolatrous and sinful.8

Both contextually (in the immediate context, and the whole context of the Scriptures) and theologically, we cannot limit Jesus’ words to condemn intentional lust alone. Indeed, it is spiritually dangerous to suggest that Jesus only condemned conscious acts of the will.

While it is true that we should not make a further decision to stoke our imaginations toward lust, Jesus is saying that the first stirrings of concupiscent desire are already truly and properly sin. The one who sees another person (other than his/her spouse) and feels unbidden, unchosen sexual desire arising in his heart, has already committed adultery in his heart.

Biblical Example of Sinful Concupiscence

The classic biblical example of this is in the story of David and Bathsheba. David was not intending on seeing Bathsheba bathing from the roof of his palace, but he saw that she was “very beautiful [lit, ‘good’]” (2 Sam. 11:2). In the style of biblical narrative, the narrator leaves David’s concupiscent lust unstated in order to, ironically, give special emphasis to it in a technique called “gapping.”9 In other words, the narrator makes David’s sinful lust the focal point precisely by ignoring (“gapping”) that elephant in the room.

After this point, David commits a number of sins intentionally. So, David steals Uriah’s wife (Eighth Commandment), in order to commit physical adultery with her (Seventh Commandment), which he then lies to cover up (Ninth Commandment). When his plans fail, he ultimately commits murder to keep his sin secret (Sixth Commandment).

Nevertheless, all of those intentional sins began with a look that led adulterous covetousness to arise unintentionally in his heart (Seventh and Tenth Commandments). Accordingly, Jesus is condemning any look that results in lust, and not just looks where the purpose is lust.

Repenting from Sinful Desires

One of the most powerful resources God gives to combat sinful, concupiscent desires, is the grace of repentance. If the Scriptures reveal that our sinful desires are already “truly and properly sin,” then we can—indeed, we must—repent from them. We not only repent from the “sight” of sinful actions, but from the “sense…of the filthiness and odiousness of [our] sins” (WLC 76):

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

What is Repentance?

When Matthew abruptly introduces us to John the Baptist, he focuses his remarks on the central theme of John’s message: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matt. 3:2). Certainly, John said more as he preached in the wilderness; however, this summarization is not an out-of-context soundbite from John’s preaching. Central to John’s ministry a…

Read more

4 years ago · Jacob Gerber

Psalm 51 (where David repents from his sin with Bathsheba) gives us such a powerful example of this:

1. First, we must ask God for forgive us: “Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgression” (Ps. 51:1). We must ask God to forgive our transgressions.

2. Second, David prays not only that God would “blot out my transgressions” (Ps. 51:1b), but that God would “wash me thoroughly from my iniquity” (Ps. 51:2a). Where “transgression” describes an act that “transgresses” God’s holy boundaries, our “iniquities” refer to the corruptions and the pollutions of our heart—that is, our concupiscence.10 We must ask God to purify us from the pollutions of our souls. That is, we are praying that “the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed” by God’s work to weaken and mortify (i.e., kill) our “several lusts” (WCF 13.1)

3. Third, David prays that God would “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me” (Ps. 51:10). Here, David is asking to be “more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord” (WCF 13.1).

The beauty of repenting from our sinful desires is that we start to attack the corruption of concupiscence when it first rears its ugly head. We don’t give our sin a head-start until it brings us fully under its control, but we ask God to forgive us, and then to begin his work of putting that sin to death, even as he causes his holiness to grow in our heart.

Yes, concupiscent desires are already a violation of the Seventh Commandment; however, it is far more heinous to allow those desires to keep growing to the point that they are “not only conceived in the heart,” but they fester until they “[break] forth in words and actions” (WLC 151.3).

Subscribe now

Read More:

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

How to Fight Temptation (Part 1): Satan's Scouting Report

In war, an accurate scouting report can save your life. Knowing how your enemy will attack helps you to formulate a plan to give you the best opportunity for success. Our struggle, however, is not against flesh and blood on the battlefield. Instead, our struggle is against the terrible power of Satan and his demonic army of spiritual forces. This is abou…

Read more

8 years ago · Jacob Gerber

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

What Makes Food Different from Sexual Immorality? (1 Cor. 6:13)

In 1 Corinthians 6:13, the Apostle Paul draws a contrast between food and sexual immorality: “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. …

Read more

7 years ago · Jacob Gerber

10

A. Craig Troxel, With All Your Heart: Orienting Your Mind, Desires, and Will Toward Christ (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020), 82–85.

Subscribe now

At the heart of a Presbyterian view of evangelism, missions, and church planting is a deep value on the centrality of the church in fulfilling the Great Commission. American evangelicalism has obscured this vision over the last hundred years or so. During this time, the predominant efforts toward evangelism have been directed toward the individual in an isolated way, while evangelicalism has simultaneously downplayed the importance of the church within evangelistic efforts. 

So, when evangelicals think of evangelism, they often think of large rallies conducted by parachurch organizations and evangelists, such as Billy Graham. Or, churches have trained their members to engage in individual evangelistic efforts to lead other people to Christ, but often in a way where the church plays only a secondary (and, thus, largely optional) role.

Against this, Presbyterians insist upon the importance of the church in evangelistic efforts. Stuart Robinson put this so well in his classic work, The Church of God as an Essential Element of the Gospel:

For the fundamental idea of the Church as a separate and distinct portion of the human race is found in the peculiar mode of that purpose itself. It is set forth as a distinguishing feature of the purpose of redemption, that it is to save not merely myriads of men as individual men, but myriads of sinners, as composing a Meditorial body, of which the Mediator shall be the head [Col. 1:18–20]; a Mediatorial Kingdom, whose government shall be upon His shoulder [Isa. 9:6, 7] forever; a Church, the Lamb’s Bride, of which He shall be the Husband [Eph. 5:20]; a bride whose beautiful portrait was graven upon the palms of his hands, and whose walls were continually before him [Isa. 49:16], when in the counsels of eternity he undertook her redemption.1

Christ came into the world to save a people—a church. Thus, there is no evangelism without the church. Indeed, there is no Christianity without the church. This was affirmed from the earliest days of Christianity in the words of Cyprian of Carthage, who wrote, “You cannot have God for your Father if you have not the church for your Mother.”2

In the ears of Protestants today, this sounds a little imbalance, as though it were a distortion of the Roman Catholic Church’s over-emphasis on the institutional church. In the Reformation, however, Cyprian’s sentiment was warmly echoed and affirmed by John Calvin himself:

I shall start, then, with the church, into whose bosom God is pleased to gather his sons, not only that they may be nourished by her help and ministry as long as they are infants and children, but also that they may be guided by her motherly care until they mature and at last reach the goal of faith. “For what God has joined together, it is not lawful to put asunder” [Mark 10:9p.], so that, for those to whom he is Father the church may also be Mother. And this was so not only under the law but also after Christ’s coming, as Paul testifies when he teaches that we are the children of the new and heavenly Jerusalem [Gal. 4:26].3

Even the Westminster Confession of Faith states the importance of the church unequivocally:

The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. (WCF 25.2)

In this class, we will briefly sketch out the biblical basis for this conviction, and then establish principles for how Presbyterians seek to carry out this biblical, church-centric vision for evangelism and missions.

A Biblical Theology of the Church: Covenant Theology

Central to the Presbyterian conviction of the central role of the church in evangelism and missions is a biblical theology that the Reformed often refer to as “covenant theology.” Covenant theology is the view that does not try to understand the New Testament church as a fundamentally new entity, but as the continuation of God’s covenant people. Contrary, then, to many who would sharply divide Israel and the church, Reformed covenant theology sees a continuity through the whole Bible, according to a single covenant of grace that God made with all his people.

Initially, God made a covenant with Adam (Hos. 6:7) that the Westminster Standards call either a covenant of works (WCF 7.2; 19:1, 6; WLC 30) or a covenant of life (WLC 20; WSC 12). Adam was initially created righteous, so he was capable of keeping the terms of this covenant: “upon condition of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience” (WLC 20). Nevertheless, he was also capable of transgressing that covenant, and that is what Adam did. Subsequently, everyone born in the line of Adam inherited his sin, and the death that entered the world through sin, a detail that Genesis makes painfully clear in Adam’s genealogy by the repetition of “...and he died” (Gen. 5:5, 11, 14, 17, 20, 27; cf. Gen. 5:24; Rom. 5:12–21).

 At the Fall, however, God also made a promise. Speaking to the serpent, God said, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between  your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (Gen. 3:15). This is the institution of a new covenant—a covenant that would not be based on works, but on grace. By this covenant of grace, God promised to bring redemption into the world through his Son Jesus Christ, who came to destroy the works of the devil—that is, to crush the head of the serpent (1 John 3:8; Rom. 16:20). This is a promise for all God’s people, and not only for those born after the time of the New Testament.

So, the Westminster Confession of Faith helpfully explains the biblical unity of the single covenant of grace, as well as the distinctive administration of this covenant in the Old and New Testaments:

7.5. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.

7.6. Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the new testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.

This understanding draws attention to the way that the Old Testament shapes our understanding of evangelism and missions as bringing outsiders into the household of Abraham. We see this emphasis in a number of biblical texts:

• Genesis 12:1–3 [1] Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. [2] And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. [3] I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” (ESV)

• Genesis 17:9–14 [9] And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. [10] This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. [11] You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. [12] He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, [13] both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. [14] Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” (ESV)

• Psalm 67:4 [4] Let the nations be glad and sing for joy, for you judge the peoples with equity and guide the nations upon earth. Selah (ESV)

• Psalm 87:4–6 [4] Among those who know me I mention Rahab and Babylon; behold, Philistia and Tyre, with Cush— “This one was born there,” they say. [5] And of Zion it shall be said, “This one and that one were born in her”; for the Most High himself will establish her. [6] The LORD records as he registers the peoples, “This one was born there.” Selah (ESV)

• Isaiah 2:2–3 [2] It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it, [3] and many peoples shall come, and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. (ESV)

• Isaiah 49:6 [6] he says: “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.” (ESV)

• Micah 4:2 [2] and many nations shall come, and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. (ESV)

• Matthew 28:18–20 [18] And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. [19] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, [20] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (ESV)

• Galatians 3:7–9 [7] Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. [8] And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” [9] So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. (ESV)

• Ephesians 2:11–13 [11] Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—[12] remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. [13] But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. (ESV)

• Revelation 21:22–26 [22] And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. [23] And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. [24] By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it, [25] and its gates will never be shut by day—and there will be no night there. [26] They will bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations. (ESV)

Thus, the ultimate goal of evangelism and missions is not the salvation of individuals as individuals, but a calling out of individuals from the nations in order to incorporate them into the church of God.

Principles for a Presbyterian, Church-Centric View of Mission

If, then, a Presbyterian vision for fulfilling the Great Commission is church-centric, how should that shape our approach to evangelism and missions? Here are a few principles that guide us:

First, evangelism and missions must focus on church-planting. Tim Keller makes this point well in his helpful article, “Why Plant Churches?” He writes:

Virtually all of the great evangelistic challenges of the New Testament are basically calls to plant churches, not simply to share the faith. The Great Commission (Matt. 28:18–20) is a call not just to “make disciples” but to baptize. In Acts and elsewhere, it is clear that baptism means incorporation into a worshiping community with accountability and boundaries (cf. Acts 2:41–47). The only way to be truly sure you are increasing the number of Christians in a town is to increase the number of churches.4

Paul did not simply make converts to Christianity; he planted Christ-proclaiming churches. Once again, we see how New Testament practices follow what happened in the Old Testament, since Abraham would build altars wherever he went both to proclaim the name of the Lord, and to leave lasting witnesses to the living God in the midst of a pagan world (e.g., Gen. 12:7, 8; 13:4, 18). In the same way, churches were to be living sacrifices, proclaiming the gospel of Jesus to their surrounding pagan neighbors (Rom. 12:1–2). 

Second, evangelism and missions must focus on leadership development. Again, Paul’s practices are instructive. We have talked in the past about how the evangelists in the early church were not Billy Graham-type figures who made individual converts at big rallies, but rather those who followed behind Paul’s apostolic ministry to establish and strengthen the fledgling churches that Paul left behind, before moving on to preach the gospel in new areas (Rom. 15:22ff). 

So, the work of Timothy and Titus as evangelists was to help establish the ongoing legacy of leadership in the churches. Accordingly, Paul commanded Timothy to “do the work of an evangelist” (2 Tim. 4:5), which involved, in part, the work of making sure that others could faithfully carry on the teaching of the word: 

2 Timothy 2:1–2 [1] You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus, [2] and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also. (ESV)

In the same way, Paul reminded Titus of the vital role in appointing elders at the churches in Crete, to make sure that those churches remained faithful:

Titus 1:5 [5] This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— (ESV)

At the heart of evangelism and missions, then, is this imperative to train leaders who can train others. 

Third, if evangelism and missions requires training leaders who will train others, then, leadership development must prioritize biblical and theological training, rather than mere techniques. Indeed, Paul states that doctrinal training is the chief purpose for which Christ gave officers to his church:

Ephesians 4:11–16 [11] And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, [12] to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, [13] until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, [14] so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. [15] Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, [16] from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. (ESV)

For this reason, Presbyterians have historically focused heavily on the theological education of leaders. Techniques can only carry church leaders so far—and, if the doctrine of those leaders is faulty, then techniques will only increase those leaders’ effectiveness in leading others astray (“human cunning…craftiness in deceitful schemes”). Leadership development, then, must prioritize biblical and theological education. 

Fourth, if the church is the body of Christ, then evangelism and missions is the work of the whole body. Paul urges us to take seriously the gifts that God has given us in how he has assigned us as the various members of the body of Christ:

Romans 12:3–8 [3] For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. [4] For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, [5] so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. [6] Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; [7] if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; [8] the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness. (ESV)

This means that evangelism and missions is not only the work of training leaders, but also the work of generosity, hospitality, and mercy. To be clear, we do not mean by this that evangelism is done without words, but only that ministries of deed are necessary to come alongside the ministry of the word in our overall witness to Jesus Christ in the world. 

After the apostles appointed deacons to help serve the tables in the daily distribution of food for both the Greek and Hebrew widows (Acts 6:1–6), the result was an explosion of evangelism:

Acts 6:7 [7] And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith. (ESV)

Thus, the whole church has a role to play in the way that we reach people for Christ, and the way that we draw them into the life of the church through faith in him.

Subscribe now

4

 Timothy Keller, “Why Plant Churches?”, 1. <https://download.redeemer.com/pdf/learn/resources/Why_Plant_Churches-Keller.pdf> Accessed March 9, 2022.

---

Other Posts in this Series

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

A Brief History of Presbyterianism

Note: These are the lecture notes for the first class of an 8-week series that I am teaching at Harvest Community Church, called “What Does it Mean to be Presbyterian?” This is by no means comprehensive, but a quick overview of some of the key historical moments that have led to the development of the Presbyterianism that we experience today. This surve…

Read more

4 years ago · Jacob Gerber

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

The Biblical Foundations for Presbyterian Church Government

Note: These are the lecture notes for the second class of an 8-week series that I am teaching at Harvest Community Church, called “What Does it Mean to be Presbyterian?” Links to the other class lecture notes may be found at the end of this post…

Read more

4 years ago · Jacob Gerber

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

The Form of Presbyterian Church Government

Note: These are the lecture notes for the third class of an 8-week series that I am teaching at Harvest Community Church, called “What Does it Mean to be Presbyterian?” Links to the other class lecture notes may be found at the end of this post…

Read more

4 years ago · Jacob Gerber

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

Introduction to the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)

Note: These are the lecture notes for the fourth class of an 8-week series that I am teaching at Harvest Community Church, called “What Does it Mean to be Presbyterian?” Links to the other class lecture notes may be found at the end of this post…

Read more

4 years ago · Jacob Gerber

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

Church Membership in the PCA

Note: These are the lecture notes for the fifth class of an 8-week series that I am teaching at Harvest Community Church, called “What Does it Mean to be Presbyterian?” Links to the other class lecture notes may be found at the end of this post…

Read more

4 years ago · Jacob Gerber

This Week’s Sermon

Last week, I preached on Matthew 5:17–20, where Jesus insists that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill the law. I recently wrote about the full requirements of the law in a post about the true nature of legalism:

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

Beware the Leaven of the Pharisees

In every age, the church must be vigilant to avoid legalism. We must never be like the Pharisees, who “tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger” (Matt. 23:24). God tells us that his commandments are not burdensome (1 John 5:3), but to…

Read more

4 years ago · Jacob Gerber

What’s so interesting about this particular passage, then, is how it sets up the passages that follow. Matthew 5:17–20 is Jesus’ introduction to his teaching on the law in the Sermon on the Mount. It is the first of seven sections (seven == number of perfection/completion), and it’s a critical foundation for everything Jesus will teach in his authoritative exposition of the Ten Commandments.

From the sermon notes:

In Matthew 5:16, Jesus urged his disciples to let their “light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” So far, however, Jesus has not defined precisely what he means by these “good works” that will lead to the glory of the heavenly Father. In this next section, Jesus begins to explain these “good works” in the light of the law. In no uncertain terms, Jesus declares that he has not come to abolish the law, but rather to bring the entailments of the law to their ultimate completion. Indeed, as he will state in the strongest possible terms, Jesus came to fulfill the law.

(Read More)

Here is the full sermon (transcript here):

Recent Posts

Continuing my series on the nature of Presbyterianism, I have two new posts. The first deals with elements, circumstances, and forms of worship, as well as the overarching idea of the Regulative Principle of Worship:

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

The Regulative Principle of Worship

Note: These are the lecture notes for the sixth class of an 8-week series that I am teaching at Harvest Community Church, called “What Does it Mean to be Presbyterian?” Links to the other class lecture notes may be found at the end of this post…

Read more

4 years ago · Jacob Gerber

The second post also relates to worship, but in a way that focuses on some “quirks” of Presbyterian piety that other Christian traditions do not always share:

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

Presbyterian “Quirks”: The Sabbath, Psalms-Singing, and Images of Christ

Note: These are the lecture notes for the seventh class of an 8-week series that I am teaching at Harvest Community Church, called “What Does it Mean to be Presbyterian?” Links to the other class lecture notes may be found at the end of this post…

Read more

4 years ago · 1 like · 3 comments · Jacob Gerber

For a brief overview of this post, I wrote a thread on Twitter that you can access here:

Remember—the Lord’s Day is one of God’s greatest blessings to his people. Have a blessed Lord’s Day tomorrow!

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

The title of this class captures what most people think when they first learn about Sabbatarianism, Psalms-singing, and a rejection of images of Christ, three distinctive areas of Presbyterian piety: That’s quirky! These distinctives raise a lot of questions, and, even with people who have been Christians for a long time, they struggle to understand just why Presbyterians insist on these elements to such a degree. 

In many areas, Presbyterians might simply seem traditional in their style. Even if an evangelical Christian prefers more “contemporary” worship styles, musical selections, and creative expressions in their worship services, they probably have some frame of reference to understand a “traditional” style that doesn’t necessarily go in on those approaches to worship. When it comes to these “quirks” however, many evangelical Christians are shocked to learn that Presbyterians consider these issues to be of great moral significance. 

This is where we see a difference, then, between a traditional approach to piety and worship, and a confessional Presbyterian approach. These issues are not nostalgic pining for “the good old days,” but deeply formed biblical convictions. 

In this class, however, our goal will not be to defend these distinctive beliefs and practices. There are other resources on those issues. In particular, R. Scott Clark has collected a stellar set of resources on the Sabbath, Psalms-singing, and images of Christ.

Instead, in this class, my goal is to offer a positive vision to help you imagine what Reformed and Presbyterian piety and worship might be like if you began to lean into these practices. My goal is that, even if you are not (yet!) persuaded that these practices are biblical, you might at least have a positive imagination about how these practices might reform your relationship with God. Or, at the very least, I hope that after this class you won’t find these beliefs and practices so quirky!

The Foundation: A Biblical and Spiritual Piety

The biblical foundation for this approach is in 2 Corinthians 5:7: “for we walk by faith, not by sight.” This verse captures not merely an encouragement that there is a world beyond this life that we cannot see; more, it captures an entire ethos for living. John Owen writes this:

There are, therefore, two ways or degrees of beholding the glory of Christ, which are constantly distinguished in the Scripture. The one is by faith in this world, which is ‘the evidence of things not seen’; the other is by sight, or immediate vision in eternity, ‘We walk by faith and not by sight’ (2 Cor. 5:7)....No man shall ever behold the glory of Christ by sight hereafter, who does not in some measure behold it by faith here in this world. Grace is a necessary preparation for glory, and faith for sight.1

If the essence of Christian piety is to behold the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:6), this is something that is (1) by faith, (2) spiritual—that is, by the Spirit, and (3) through the Word of God. That is, our spirituality is guided not by what we can see, but by faith in God’s Word.

That our spirituality should be guided by faith isn’t necessarily a controversial point among evangelical Christians. Where this becomes controversial, though, is when we extend this logic to chart out how to think about these Presbyterian “quirks.”

The Sabbath

I’d like to draw our attention to two important and surprising texts about the Sabbath. First:

[12] And the LORD said to Moses, [13] “You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, ‘Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the LORD, sanctify you. [14] You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. [15] Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. [16] Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever. [17] It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.’” (Ex. 31:12–17)

When the Lord insists that his people keep the Sabbath, he does so by insisting that the Sabbath is a sign. A sign is something visible that points us to something else—in this case, to something invisible. Specifically, the Lord teaches that the Sabbath is a (visible) sign that he (invisibly) sanctifies us. 

Sabbath-keeping, then, is a sign about our spirituality, but not a sign of what we are doing for God. That is, Sabbath-keeping is not a weekly method for virtue signaling (“I thank you, Lord, that I’m not like those immoral people who don’t keep Sabbath!”). Rather, Sabbath-keeping is a sign of what God does for us. We rest as a testimony to the watching world of what God is doing in and through us, to sanctify us. It is a powerful reminder amongst ourselves, as well as to the watching world, that we cease from work because we believe that God is at work (John 5:17).

The second text is an important corollary:

[13] “If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the LORD honorable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly; [14] then you shall take delight in the LORD, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.” (Is. 58:13–14)

God teaches us that we learn to delight in him by learning to delight in his Sabbath. That is, the Sabbath is a means of God’s grace toward us. As a sign, the Sabbath proclaims to the watching world that God is sanctifying us. But, as a means of grace, the Sabbath is the venue in which God teaches us to delight in him.

It is in this context that we must understand the strict limitations for the Lord’s Day:

WLC Q. 117. How is the sabbath or the Lord’s day to be sanctified?

A. The sabbath or Lord’s day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all the day, not only from such works as are at all times sinful, but even from such worldly employments and recreations as are on other days lawful; and making it our delight to spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to be taken up in works of necessity and mercy) in the public and private exercises of God's worship: and, to that end, we are to prepare our hearts, and with such foresight, diligence, and moderation, to dispose and seasonably dispatch our worldly business, that we may be the more free and fit for the duties of that day.

We are to spend the entire Lord’s day in public and private exercises of worship—and we are to duly prepare our hearts and our affairs to enter into that worship as much as possible—not to restrict ourselves. Rather, the Lord’s Day is an invitation to delight in the Lord by worshiping him. This delight isn’t in something that is material,  visible, or earthly, but in something that is spiritual, invisible, and heavenly.

As Thomas Boston observes, those who live according to the flesh choke on this spiritual delicacy of the Sabbath:

What pain and difficulty do men often find in bringing their hearts to religious duties! and what a task is it to the carnal heart to abide at them! It is a pain to it, to leave the world but a little to come before God. It is not easy to borrow time from the many things, to spend it upon the one thing needful. Men often go to God in duties, with their faces towards the world; and when their bodies are on the mount of ordinances, their hearts will be found at the foot of the hill 'going after their covetousness’ (Ezek 33.31). They are soon wearied of well-doing, for holy duties are not agreeable to their corrupt nature. Take notice of them at their worldly business, set them down with their carnal company, or let them be enjoying a lust, time seems to them to fly, and drive furiously, so that it is gone before they are aware. But how heavily does it pass, while a prayer, a sermon, or a Sabbath lasts! The Lord’s day is the longest day of all the week with many; therefore they must sleep longer that morning, and go sooner to bed that night, than ordinarily they do; that the day may be made of a tolerable length: for their hearts say within them, ‘When will the Sabbath be gone?’ (Amos 8.5). The hours of worship are the longest hours of that day: hence, when duty is over, they are like men eased of a burden, and when sermon is ended, many have neither the grace nor the good manners to stay till the blessing is pronounced, but, like the beasts, their head is away, so soon as a man puts his hand to loose them; and why? because, while they are at ordinances, they are, as Doeg, ‘detained before the Lord’ (1 Sam 21.7).2

As Paul reminds us, however, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14). Learning to delight in the Lord’s Day is entirely spiritually discerned.

Psalms-Singing

Psalms-singing is perhaps not difficult for Bible-believing evangelicals to understand. After all, the Scriptures explicitly command us to sing psalms:

[18] And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, [19] addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, [20] giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, [21] submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. (Eph. 5:18–21)

Classically, Presbyterians have argued that “hymns and spiritual songs” are also psalms. The Greek words appear in the Greek translation of the Psalter. So, the word “hymn” (ὕμνος; hymnos) appears in Psalm 40:3: “He put a new song in my mouth, a song [ὕμνον; hymnon] of praise to our God.” Then, the word “song” (ᾠδή; ōdē) appears (for example) in the titles of Psalm 68: “A Song” (ᾠδῆς; ōdēs). Also, we should observe that the Westminster Confession of Faith identifies the “singing of psalms with grace in the heart” as an element of biblical worship, but does not explicitly acknowledge the singing of any songs from outside the psalter (WCF 21.5). This is called the “exclusive psalmody” position, and it is still practiced among some Presbyterian groups, like the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America (RPCNA).

The PCA, however, does acknowledge both hymns and psalms as a biblical part of public worship:

Praising God through the medium of music is a duty and a privilege. Therefore, the singing of hymns and psalms and the use of musical instruments should have an important part in public worship. (BCO 51-1)

Even so, the PCA acknowledges a special place of importance for the Psalms, and a special caution in regard to the hymns we select:

It is recommended that Psalms be sung along with the hymns of the Church, but that caution be observed in the selection of hymns, that they be true to the Word. Hymns should have the note of praise, or be in accord with the spirit of the sermon. (BCO 51-3)

Again, this much may be approved of by many Bible-believing evangelicals—at least in theory. In practice, there are often objections against singing Psalms because of the fact that metric Psalms are much less musically appealing than some of the other worship music available. In practice, then, it can sometimes be very difficult to make room for Psalms within our public congregational singing.

Why, then, is it so important to sing the Psalms together? If we think about our foundational principles of biblical and spiritual piety, the reasons become quickly clear. We sing Psalms to fill our souls with God’s very Word. The words are not always the words we would initially think to sing if we were writing these for ourselves; however, that demonstrates to us that our souls have not been as formed by the Word of God as they should be.

G. Duncan Lowe writes this:

What we see, then, is that although the Psalms do not express every legitimate Christian prayer, they do serve as the God-given model of prayer forged in the heat of testing. And the voice that speaks in the Psalms is one with many layers of connection to Jesus, both in His glory and in His agony. It is this inspired voice, even more than the poetry of the Psalms, that makes this part of God’s such an instrument of soul-searching power in His hands. It is part of our legacy in Christ. Even the hard questions that the Psalms raise are part of our legacy as Christians and still have disturbing power today. This is so because though Jesus, now the risen and glorified Christ, rules with authority over all things in heaven and earth, we do not always see events turning out favorably for His people or for the honor of His name. Can we explain this away without reasons? Or can we block such thoughts from our minds? The Psalms show us a different path, a path of prayer that faces hard truths and avoids easy wrong answers. The Psalms also point us back to the cross of Christ, that mystery above all, where questions of God’s justice and God’s faithfulness come to resolution.3

The Psalms teach us to see Christ’s (invisible) reign and rule through singing the Word of God.

Images of Christ

This one is probably the most difficult quirk for Bible-believing evangelicals to understand. Many such Christians grew up with children’s Bibles that included a number of illustrations, with many of them depicting Jesus in his earthly life and ministry. Also, Christians regularly include nativity sets with a small doll representing the body of our Savior during the first hours of his life on earth. Is that really so wrong?

If we begin with the fundamental biblical principles above, we should remember that our biblical and spiritual piety is given to what is spiritual and invisible. This does not mean that we deny that Jesus had a visible body, nor that we believe that he has abandoned his human nature now that he is glorified and ascended into heaven. 

On the contrary, we avoid making images of Jesus precisely because we believe that he is visible in heaven now, although out of our sight. That is, we avoid making images of Jesus because we take his visibility so seriously. Peter gets at this idea when he contrasts our love for Jesus with the fact that we cannot now see him:

[8] Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, [9] obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls. (1 Pet. 1:8–9)

Imagine if a man went on a long trip away from his wife, and he selected a photo of a different woman to take along with him. It would do no good for him to try to justify his actions to his wife by insisting that even though it is not really a photo of her, the photo would lead him to love her while he was away from her. Of course not! That wife would rightly insist that her husband take her picture with him on his trip.

In the same way, it does no good to argue that our images of Jesus help us to love him more. First, he did not preserve any authoritative visual image to teach us what he looked like. Living by faith in this world is like preparing for the blind date that will be beyond our wildest dreams.

Second, while he did not give us a visual image, the Scriptures teach us that we do see him—that we must see him, albeit on his own terms. Specifically, the Scriptures teach us that we see him in his word, and especially in the preaching of the gospel:

• 2 Corinthians 4:4 [4] In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (ESV)

• Galatians 3:1 [1] O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. (ESV)

• 2 Peter 1:16, 19 [16] For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty….[19] And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts…. (ESV)

Thus, we return to the John Owen quotation that we considered originally. There are two ways of seeing the glory of Christ, and those two ways are constantly distinguished in Scripture. Now we see Christ by faith, but then we will behold him by sight. Rejecting images of Jesus is a way of keeping our hearts pure, for as Jesus taught us, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Matt. 5:8).

Still, this is not a situation that we must simply endure. God has purposefully appointed that our lives should be a time when we do not pollute our mind with images of Jesus. John Owen continues in explaining why God intends for us to see the glory of Christ by faith now. Namely, because by learning to see Christ by faith now, God makes us fit to see the full glory of Christ for all eternity:

We shall hereby be made fit for heaven…All men, indeed, think themselves fit enough for glory (what should hinder them?) if they could attain it; but it is because they know now what it is. Men shall not be clothed with glory, as it were, whether they will or no. It is to be received in that exercise of the faculties of their souls which such persons have no ability for. Music has no pleasure in it to them that cannot hear, nor the most beautiful colors, to them that cannot see. It would be no benefit to a fish to take him from the bottom of the ocean, filled with cold and darkness, and to place him under the beams of the sun; for he is no way suited to receive any refreshment thereby. Heaven itself would not be more advantageous to persons not renewed by the Spirit of grace in this life.4

Just as the Israelites were distracted from the true God by worshiping the golden calf (whom they set up as an image to represent Yahweh), so our hearts are distracted from Christ by creating images of him. As the Apostle John writes:

[20] And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. [21] Little children, keep yourselves from idols. (1 John 5:20–21)

As we grow in love for our Savior, and in the holiness without which no one will see the Lord (Heb. 12:14), let us keep ourselves from idols!

Subscribe now

4

Owen, The Glory of Christ, 47–48.

---

Other Posts in this Series

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

A Brief History of Presbyterianism

Note: These are the lecture notes for the first class of an 8-week series that I am teaching at Harvest Community Church, called “What Does it Mean to be Presbyterian?” This is by no means comprehensive, but a quick overview of some of the key historical moments that have led to the development of the Presbyterianism that we experience today. This surve…

Read more

4 years ago · Jacob Gerber

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

The Biblical Foundations for Presbyterian Church Government

Note: These are the lecture notes for the second class of an 8-week series that I am teaching at Harvest Community Church, called “What Does it Mean to be Presbyterian?” Links to the other class lecture notes may be found at the end of this post…

Read more

4 years ago · Jacob Gerber

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

The Form of Presbyterian Church Government

Note: These are the lecture notes for the third class of an 8-week series that I am teaching at Harvest Community Church, called “What Does it Mean to be Presbyterian?” Links to the other class lecture notes may be found at the end of this post…

Read more

4 years ago · Jacob Gerber

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

Introduction to the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)

Note: These are the lecture notes for the fourth class of an 8-week series that I am teaching at Harvest Community Church, called “What Does it Mean to be Presbyterian?” Links to the other class lecture notes may be found at the end of this post…

Read more

4 years ago · Jacob Gerber

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

Church Membership in the PCA

Note: These are the lecture notes for the fifth class of an 8-week series that I am teaching at Harvest Community Church, called “What Does it Mean to be Presbyterian?” Links to the other class lecture notes may be found at the end of this post…

Read more

4 years ago · Jacob Gerber

Subscribe now

All Christians treasure worship. Worship is where we respond to the high and holy summons that are included throughout the Bible. For example: “Make a joyful noise to the LORD, all the earth! Serve the LORD with gladness! Come into his presence with singing!” (Ps. 100:1–2). While the Scriptures command us to do all things to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31), we glorify God in a special way when we gather with fellow believers to enter into corporate (i.e., public) worship.

For Presbyterians, worship has an extra level of significance in the way that we view worship as something that is entirely regulated by God. We do not worship God as we please, but only in accordance with the commands he has given us in his word. This is called the “Regulative Principle of Worship.” In worship, we may not add to what God has commanded, and neither may we subtract from God’s commands. Instead, we must be careful to do all that God has commanded us, and nothing more.

The Regulative Principle of Worship

Presbyterians come to the Regulative Principle of Worship by both precept (i.e., clear teaching and commands) and example in the Bible. The first clear example of the Regulative Principle of Worship in action arises almost at the very beginning of the Bible, in the story of Cain and Abel. We read:

[3] In the course of time Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground, [4] and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering, [5] but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his face fell. [6] The LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? [7] If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it.” (Gen. 4:3–7)

The narrative of Genesis does not tell us explicitly why the Lord “had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard.” Nevertheless, the text gives some subtle clues. First, we should notice that it is not merely that God accepted/rejected the offerings of each respective brother, but that first God accepted/rejected the brothers: “Abel and his offering…Cain and his offering.” Much of the reason for accepting Abel’s offering, and for rejecting Cain’s offering, then, was tied to the person making the offering—that is, to the heart of the worshiper. 

Second, though, as Allen Ross observes, Abel went “out of his way to please God…: ‘He brought the fattest of the firstlings of his flock,’” while Cain merely brought “an offering of the fruit of the ground.”1 Once again, we see an indication of the heart of each respective worshiper. Nevertheless, we also see here an obedience to principles for worship that God will eventually command explicitly in both Abel’s willingness to offer the fat portions in sacrifice (e.g., Ex. 29:13), or to offer the firstborn of his flock to the Lord (e.g., Lev. 27:26). Genesis does not tell us how Abel came to understand what kind of sacrifice he was to offer; however, the fact that God reminds Cain that he will be accepted if he “does well” implies that Cain knew what was required of him, but fell short.

An even subtler example that underscores the Regulative Principle of Worship occurs when the Israelites make the Golden Calf in Exodus 32. It is important to see that the Israelites do not believe that they are making a different god by the image they create. Rather, they are explicit that they are worshiping “your gods [אֱלֹהֶ֙יךָ֙; ’elōheykā; alt. translation: ‘your God’] who brought you up out of the land of Egypt” (Ex. 32:4). Then, to make the point explicit, Aaron declares to the people, “Tomorrow shall be a feast to the LORD [YHWH]” (Ex. 32:5). The sin of Israel in Exodus 32 was not to worship other gods; rather, their sin was to worship God in a manner that he had forbidden.

In terms of precept, the Bible gives extensive teaching to clarify this point:

• Deuteronomy 5:32 [32] You shall be careful therefore to do as the LORD your God has commanded you. You shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. (ESV)

• Deuteronomy 12:32 [32] “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it. (ESV)

• Matthew 15:7–9 [7] “You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: [8] ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; [9] in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’” (ESV)

• John 4:23–24 [23] “But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. [24] God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (ESV)

The Westminster Shorter Catechism identifies this as the main point of the Second Commandment:

Q. 50. What is required in the second commandment?

A. The second commandment requireth the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath appointed in his word.

Q. 51. What is forbidden in the second commandment?

A. The second commandment forbiddeth the worshiping of God by images, or any other way not appointed in his word.

Thus, we see the Regulative Principle  Westminster Confession of Faith, then, summarizes the Regulative Principle of Worship:

The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture. (WCF 21.1)

Notice that our Confession acknowledges that natural revelation (the “light of nature”) does reveal some truths about our worship of God—namely, that there is a God, and that we owe him our worship. Nevertheless, when we start to ask how we should worship God, our worship is rightly limited by the practices of worshiping that he himself has laid out for us in the Scriptures.

The Regulative Principle of Worship, then, is clear from Scripture both in precept and example, and Presbyterians are right to confess this principle as biblical. Still, we need to clarify our terms a bit more tightly so that we understand precisely what we mean by this. Particularly, we need to distinguish between elements, circumstances, and forms of worship. Then, we will discuss why Presbyterians have typically prepared a Directory for Worship.

Elements of Worship

Presbyterians define the elements of worship as what we offer to God as our worship. While we may, during a corporate worship service, make use of microphones and sound systems, bulletins, pews, and even things as basic as clothing, we do not say that these are the elements of worship. Instead, the elements of worship are limited to ways prescribed in the Holy Scripture.

The biblical elements of worship, then, include:

• Prayer, with thanksgiving, being one special part of religious worship, is by God required of all men: and, that it may be accepted, it is to be made in the name of the Son, by the help of his Spirit, according to his will, with understanding, reverence, humility, fervency, faith, love, and perseverance; and, if vocal, in a known tongue. (WCF 21.3)

• The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence, singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: beside religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner. (WCF 21.5)

• As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath. (WCF 21.7)2

By the reading and hearing of the Word, the preaching of the Word, the singing of the Word (particularly, the Psalms), and the receiving of the sacraments (the signs and seals of the Word), God’s people worship him in accordance with his Word. Moreover, note the way in which the Sabbath is particularly appointed as the proper day for the worship of God.

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

Is Foot-Washing a Sacrament?

On the night when Jesus betrayed, our Lord did two things that continue to capture the hearts and imaginations of his disciples to this day. First, he washed his disciples’ feet, and second, he instituted the Lord’s Supper. The New Testament teaches that the church should continue receiving the Lord’s Supper as a sacrament, and that we should receive th…

Read more

9 years ago · Jacob Gerber

Circumstances in Worship

As mentioned earlier, however, there are other things that take place during the course of worship that we must distinguish from the elements of worship. So, our confession speaks of the circumstances concerning worship:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. (WCF 1.6)

While the elements of worship deal with issues of biblical faithfulness, the circumstances of worship deal with biblical wisdom. Such circumstantial details of worship would cover a number of decisions, including (but not limited to) the following:

• The time to gather for worship on the Lord’s Day (that we must gather on the Lord’s Day biblically required, but when we gather on the Lord’s Day is a circumstance of worship)

• Whether we schedule Sunday School classes before or after Lord’s Day worship.3

• Whether to use a microphone/sound system

• Whether to use pews, chairs, etc.

• Whether to sit, or whether to stand

• Which biblical songs to sing (that they must be biblical is an issue of the elements of worship; however, which biblical songs to sing, out of all the biblical songs to sing, is circumstantial)

• Which passages from the Bible to read

• Which passages from the Bible to preach from, how the sermon is to be ordered, and how long the preacher is to preach

In all of these decisions, we must adhere to the “general rules of the Word” as much as possible. Nevertheless, these are decisions that are not mandated by the Scriptures. Therefore, these are issues of biblical wisdom, not biblical faithfulness.4

Who, though, makes these decisions? The power to make circumstantial decisions regarding the ordering of public worship is a power reserved for the elders of the church, in what theologians call the “diatactical power” (from the Greek words διά, dia, “through”; and τάξις, taxis, “order”; v. 40) of the church. On this power, James Bannerman writes this:

There is the ‘potestas διατακτικη [diataktikē],’ the power belonging to the Church in the way of administering ordinances and government in the Christian society. This power comprehends the right to carry into effect the institutions and laws which Christ has appointed within the Church: it does not involve the power to bind the conscience or obedience of its members to the observance of new or additional ordinances, enacted by itself. In regard to ordinances, the authority of the Church in the dispensation of them is purely administrative; the Church communicating to them no authority and no virtue from itself, but dispensing them solely as the appointed channels through which the Spirit of God conveys a spiritual influence to those who use them in faith, and not as charms to which the Church has imparted grace of its own. In regard to laws, the authority of the Church is no more than declaratory, and can neither enforce the obedience nor punish the transgression of them by any other than the authority wherewith Christ has made them binding, or the censures wherewith Christ has given sanction to their hold on the conscience.5

Notice how carefully circumscribed this power is. The elders of the church do not have the power to legislate new elements by which we worship God. Instead, the elders of the church only have the power to administer the elements that God has already commanded. This requires ministerial power to plan and to organize the administer God’s worship, but this power may never exceed the limitations of the Regulative Principle by adding to or subtracting from the elements we offer as worship.

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

All Church Power is Only Ministerial and Declarative

I am an ordained pastor in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). As a fundamental principle, our Book of Church Order limits church power and authority to be only ministerial and declarative: All church power, whether exercised by the body in general, or by representation…

Read more

8 years ago · Jacob Gerber

Forms in Worship

The final aspect of worship are the forms of worship. A form of worship refers to the particular form that our worship takes—i.e., the formulas we use for worship. The best example of this is the Lord’s Prayer, which our Catechisms call a “form of prayer” (WLC 186, WSC 99). In the Lord’s Prayer, we have a useful guide to use for forming other prayers; however, we also have a set form of prayer that we may use as a prayer:

WLC Q. 187. How is the Lord’s prayer to be used?

A. The Lord’s prayer is not only for direction, as a pattern, according to which we are to make other prayers; but may also be used as a prayer, so that it be done with understanding, faith, reverence, and other graces necessary to the right performance of the duty of prayer.

A worship service that is done “decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40) will necessarily require forms for worship so that all may participate together with one voice in the songs we sing, in the Scripture we read together, and in the prayers that we pray corporately. Any forms that guide the worship of the whole church ought, then, to be thoroughly biblical, so that it remains the Word of God the guides our worship.

Directory for Worship, not Set Forms

This question of the proper forms of worship is one of the primary points of distinguishing Presbyterians from Anglicans. Anglicans have the Book of Common Prayer, which is filled with set prayers to pray in worship, ordered according to the (so-called) Christian liturgical calendar, the lectionary readings for the day, and the liturgical order of service. 

For Anglicans, the Book of Common Prayer is the heartbeat of what it means to be Anglican. In comparison to Presbyterians, for example, Anglicans are more indifferent about the precise form of church government, and their Confession of Faith (the 39 Articles) is far less precise than the expansive Westminster Standards. (The English Parliament called the Westminster Assembly to revise the 39 Articles.) So, while different Anglican communions may have wide differences in their church polity and their doctrine, it is the set forms of worship that makes Anglicans Anglican. There may be slight differences in the liturgy from different revisions of the Book of Common Prayer; however, the prayers, Scripture readings, and homily text for an Anglican service in Africa, England, or the United States will have a tremendous amount of similarity on a given Sunday.

Presbyterians, on the other hand, struggle to demand that degree of uniformity of worship for a very simple reason: because the Bible doesn’t demand it. So, while the Presbyterians are strict about the elements of worship as they are biblically commanded, Presbyterians are not willing to prescribe the precise forms for how those various elements should be observed from church to church. 

Yet, Presbyterians do not have quite the same degree of flexibility as still other Christians like Baptists, where any kind of formality is often frowned upon. Charles Spurgeon, for example, taught his ministerial students never to use a written prayer, but instead to try to learn to pray extemporaneously in a manner so thoroughly forged in the fires of private prayer that the prayers would sound written.6

Instead, Presbyterians have traditionally sought to find a balance between rigid formality and formless flexibility by creating a Directory for Worship. In the Directory, Presbyterians give guides or suggestions to shape worship according to certain principles, but that stops short of assigning specific prayers. The Directory is meant to give principles and examples, rather than ready-made forms.

We must remember that this is one of the quirks of the Presbyterian Church in America: our denomination never adopted our Directory for Worship. We have a Directory in the back of the Book of Church Order, but only a few small portions are considered fully constitutional. Thus, we have principles and examples for people to follow, but without any real requirement that they do so. For this reason, worship in the PCA has been notoriously diverse from church to church. It is not only that you will not find the same set prayers and lectionary readings in two PCA churches (as you would in two Anglican churches), but you will also not necessarily find that the same overall approach, order, and structure of a worship service in two PCA churches.

Subscribe now

6

“Our Public Prayer,” in Charles Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students: A Selection from Addresses Delivered to the Students of the Pastors’ College, Metropolitan Tabernacle (New York: Sheldon & Company, 1875), 84–111.

---

Other Posts in this Series

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

A Brief History of Presbyterianism

Note: These are the lecture notes for the first class of an 8-week series that I am teaching at Harvest Community Church, called “What Does it Mean to be Presbyterian?” This is by no means comprehensive, but a quick overview of some of the key historical moments that have led to the development of the Presbyterianism that we experience today. This surve…

Read more

4 years ago · Jacob Gerber

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

The Biblical Foundations for Presbyterian Church Government

Note: These are the lecture notes for the second class of an 8-week series that I am teaching at Harvest Community Church, called “What Does it Mean to be Presbyterian?” Links to the other class lecture notes may be found at the end of this post…

Read more

4 years ago · Jacob Gerber

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

The Form of Presbyterian Church Government

Note: These are the lecture notes for the third class of an 8-week series that I am teaching at Harvest Community Church, called “What Does it Mean to be Presbyterian?” Links to the other class lecture notes may be found at the end of this post…

Read more

4 years ago · Jacob Gerber

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

Introduction to the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)

Note: These are the lecture notes for the fourth class of an 8-week series that I am teaching at Harvest Community Church, called “What Does it Mean to be Presbyterian?” Links to the other class lecture notes may be found at the end of this post…

Read more

4 years ago · Jacob Gerber

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

Church Membership in the PCA

Note: These are the lecture notes for the fifth class of an 8-week series that I am teaching at Harvest Community Church, called “What Does it Mean to be Presbyterian?” Links to the other class lecture notes may be found at the end of this post…

Read more

4 years ago · Jacob Gerber

This Week’s Sermon

I’m really enjoying preaching through the Sermon on the Mount! Last week, I preached about Jesus’ teaching that his disciples should serve as salt and light in the world. In a very difficult week of ministry, I clung to Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:11–16.

Here is the introduction from the sermon notes:

In the Beatitudes, Jesus offers some of the most beautiful teaching in the entire Bible about the kingdom of heaven. Jesus does not want us to misunderstand what he is teaching, though. While he stated all of the beatitudes as timeless principles, he does not want us to think that the kingdom of heaven is little more than a set of platitudes. In this next section, then, Jesus begins to turn the attention of the disciples away from an external admiration for the kingdom of heaven, to an internal motivation to lay hold of the kingdom of heaven by faith, regardless of the consequences. Here, Jesus is beginning to draw the disciples in to understand their own role in the kingdom, since discipleship bears witness to Jesus in the world.

(Read More)

And here is the full sermon (transcript here):

Recent Posts

This week, I continued my series on Presbyterianism with a primer on membership in the PCA. This article walks through the importance of church membership, as well as the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of members:

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

Church Membership in the PCA

Note: These are the lecture notes for the fifth class of an 8-week series that I am teaching at Harvest Community Church, called “What Does it Mean to be Presbyterian?” Links to the other class lecture notes may be found at the end of this post…

Read more

4 years ago · Jacob Gerber

Have a blessed Lord’s Day tomorrow!

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

While the word “Presbyterian” refers to the elder-ruled (see 1 Tim. 5:17) nature of our church government, the congregation plays an important part in the overall function of the church. Indeed, one of the central principles of Presbyterian church government is that the power Christ has given to his church is vested in the church as a whole, and that the elders exercise that power on behalf of the congregation—just as the eyes exercise the function of sight on behalf of the rest of the body. Sight belongs to the whole body (not just the eyes), and spiritual church power belongs to the whole church (not just the elders).

This class will consider the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of the congregation as a whole within the Presbyterian system.

Why is Church Membership Important?

Church membership is important.1 The Bible never suggests in the least that believers are independent from one another. Rather, again and again the Bible teaches that each of God’s people are individually members of one another, just as our bodies are made up of various limbs and organs: “For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (Rom. 12:4–5).

There is a sense in which the Bible speaks of the “church” in its universal, invisible sense that it stretches across time and through every tribe, language, people, and nation (e.g., Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:18; Rev. 5:9–10). But there it is also the sense of the word “church” that refers to individual, local, visible congregations—many of which were so local that they met in single houses (e.g., Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Cor. 1:1; Col. 4:15; Phile. 2).

These congregations have a clear sense of who is a member, and who is not. This aspect of church membership is painfully clear in the passages that talk about excommunicating unrepentant sinners from membership in the church (Matt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 5:1–13; 1 John 2:19), and in the passages about welcoming repentant sinners back into the membership of the church (e.g., 2 Cor. 2:4–10). It is impossible to remove someone from membership if that person has never been a member, and restoration to membership is meaningless apart from a formal membership process. Moreover, several Biblical commands are impossible apart from local church membership (e.g., Gal. 6:10; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 5:5).

The Bible never at any point suggests that a Christian may be a member of the universal, invisible church without also being a member of a local, visible church. Some have observed that the Bible never explicitly instructs us how we should become members of local, visible churches; however, the Bible also never explicitly instructs us how a man and a woman get married. Of course, the Bible clearly understands that there is a difference between the married and unmarried. The same thing is true for members and non-members of a church.

In sum, church membership is essential so that (1) the church can be blessed with the gifts that Jesus has entrusted to each individual in our midst, and (2) each individual can receive the shepherding that Jesus commands for his sheep. For as long as you are here, we hope that you will be blessed by, and a blessing to, the other members of your local congregation.

Types of Membership

There are two primary kinds of membership in the PCA: non-communing and communing membership. Non-communing members are the covenant children born to believing parents, while communing members are those who “commune”—that is, who partake of the sealing ordinance of communion.

Non-Communing Members: Covenant Children

Flowing out of our covenant theology, we recognize that the children of professing believers have special standing in the church, as distinct from the children of unbelievers:

The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. (WCF 25.2)

So, on the Day of Pentecost, Peter proclaims that the promises of the gospel (and, thus, baptism) are not only for “you,” but also “for your children” (Acts 2:38–39). Then, the Apostle Paul urges believers to remain married to unbelievers for the sake of preserving the holy status of the children: “For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy” (1 Cor. 7:14). 

These are even stronger covenant promises than the children believers enjoyed under the old covenant. Previously, the children of mixed marriages were excluded from membership in Israel on the basis of the unbelieving spouse (Deut. 23:2–8; Mal. 2:11–12). In the new covenant, children are counted as holy on the basis of the believing spouse. 

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

The Better Promises of the New Covenant to the Children of Believers

By definition, the new covenant is enacted on better promises than the old covenant (Heb. 8:6). But does this mean that all God's promises in the new covenant better than God's promises in the old covenant? Does God weaken or turn away from any of his promises, now that Christ has come into the world…

Read more

7 years ago · Jacob Gerber

Accordingly, the Book of Church Order insists that:

The children of believers are, through the covenant and by right of birth, non-communing members of the church. Hence they are entitled to Baptism, and to the pastoral oversight, instruction and government of the church, with a view to their embracing Christ and thus possessing personally all benefits of the covenant. (BCO 6-1)

The “nurture, instruction and training of the children of the Church are committed by God primarily to their parents” (BCO 28-1).

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

The Goal of Parenting

Parents have a God-given desire to provide for their children, but we don't always clearly know what we should provide for our children. The genealogy of Cain (Gen. 4:17–24) illustrates this principle tragically, since Cain and his descendants make extraordinary contributions to human civilization, but they also inherit the wickedness and violence of Ca…

Read more

9 years ago · Jacob Gerber

Beyond this, the church has a special role in bringing up covenant children to know and love the Lord:

The Church should maintain constant and sympathetic relations with the children. It also should encourage them, on coming to years of discretion, to make confession of the Lord Jesus Christ and to enter upon all privileges of full church membership. If they are wayward they should be cherished by the church and every means used to reclaim them. (BCO 28-3)

Therefore, when a child is baptized, the parents make three vows for raising their children “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord,” but the congregation also takes a vow:

Do you as a congregation undertake the responsibility of assisting the parents in the Christian nurture of this child? (BCO 56-5)

We do not raise children with the presumption that they are regenerate, but neither do we presume that they are unregenerate until “converted.” Our children are covenant members by birthright, and we raise them to be faithful covenant members by trusting in Jesus for their salvation. Therefore, we raise covenant children to never remember a day when they didn’t love Jesus.

In accordance with Christ’s Great Commission, we baptize them as disciples, and we teach them to obey everything that Jesus commanded them (Matt. 28:16–20). Throughout, we pray with and for our children for the Holy Spirit to lead them into an ever-deeper love and faith in Christ.

Subscribe now

Communing Members

Communing members are those who have been baptized and who have also been examined and approved by the Session as having made a credible profession of faith. This does not quite mean the same thing that Baptists do when they speak about a “regenerate church membership.” We do not demand proof that someone is regenerate before admitting them into membership. 

Instead, we look for credible evidence that someone has repented from his/her sins and is looking to Christ for salvation. We recognize that, sadly, there are some who will be with us for a time, but who then go out from us, thereby demonstrating that they were never really of us (1 John 2:18–19). Or, in the parable of Jesus, the initial growth from those whose hearts are like soil filled with rocks and weeds may look very similar to those whose hearts are like good soil (Matt. 13:18–23). So, we look for a credible profession of faith; however, we also recognize that Christ has commanded discipline in the church to cast out those who ultimately live in a manner unworthy of the gospel. 

Of course, this does not mean casting out anyone who still sins, for then no one would remain in the church. Instead, we recognize the ongoing necessity of discipline to call believers back to repentance and faith in Christ, and to cast out only those who do not respond to such calls. Even in the cases where we do excommunicate someone, our prayer is always that such a person would repent eventually. Thus, we “deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” (1 Cor. 5:5).

The primary benefit to communing membership is permission to commune—to receive the sealing ordinance of the Lord’s Supper. The sacraments ratify our claim to the covenant promises. Just as the Israelites had to be circumcised before they could lay claim to the covenantally promised land of Canaan (Josh. 5:1–9), so our claim to the covenant promises of Christ are ratified initially in baptism, and then ongoingly in communion. So, church discipline that suspends someone from the sacraments, or that excommunicates someone from the church is a powerful statement that cancels such a claim, declaring that such a person (by virtue of ongoing, unrepentant sin) has no legitimate claim to the promises of Christ.

We will delineate the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of communing members in greater detail below.

Associate Members

Additionally, the Book of Church Order (BCO) makes provision for associate members:

Associate members are those believers temporarily residing in a location other than their permanent homes. Such believers may become associate members of a particular church without ceasing to be communicant members of their home churches. An associate member shall have all the rights and privileges of that church, with the exception of voting in a congregational or corporation meeting, and holding an office in that church. (BCO 46-4)

It is good and right and healthy to be a member of the church where we are worshiping. In those cases where someone’s stay in an area is lengthy, but temporary, associate membership allows those individuals to belong formally to a church, and for that church to belong formally to them.

The Rights, Privileges, and Responsibilities of Church Membership

Tragically, American Christians increasingly view churches consumeristically, seeking out teaching and “worship experiences” (especially musically) that meet their own tastes and preferences. The internet—and especially the proliferation of livestreamed services during Covid—have only exacerbated this problem, since people can consume whatever they want from a church (a sermon here, a class there, a worship music set at still another place) without any meaningful connection to any particular congregation.

The church is not, however, a “dispenser of religious goods and services.” Rather, the church is the kingdom of Jesus Christ, establishing the rule of King Jesus’ reign by ministry mediated through the officers of the church. This requires members to submit to the government of the church, and it requires officers to shepherd the flock of God in their midst faithfully.

In this section, we need to discuss the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of church membership.

The Shepherding Care of the Church

The most important rights and privileges of church membership is the shepherding care of the church:

All baptized persons are entitled to the watchful care, instruction and government of the church, even though they are adults and have made no profession of their faith in Christ. (BCO 6-3)

All members—communing and non-communing alike—have a right to the shepherding care of the government of the church. The significance of this point cannot be overstated. As Stuart Robinson writes, “the Church is an indispensable means of accomplishing the great purpose of his love to his chosen people, as an institute for the calling, training, and edifying the elect.”2 The Church is an essential blessing of the gospel, the essential vehicle for the spreading the gospel, and the essential context for building people up in the gospel. The shepherding care of the church is vital.

Decisions Made by the Congregation

We must never forget that Presbyterian churches are elder-ruled. Presbyterian churches are not congregationalist, where it is the congregation who receives members, votes to impose sanctions in church discipline, defines doctrine, or approves budgets. Presbyterian churches follow the biblical example by ordaining elders to these roles. 

Nevertheless, the congregation is not passive. The congregation has important responsibilities which they carry out in congregational meetings. This includes the following:

• The congregation votes to affiliate/disaffiliate with a denomination (BCO 25-11).

• While the deacons are charged with stewardship of the maintenance of the church property, “In matters of special importance affecting the property of the church, [deacons] cannot take final action without the approval of the Session and consent of the congregation” (BCO 9-2).

• The congregation votes to elect a pulpit committee to recommend a pastoral candidate to the congregation (BCO 20-2).

• The congregation votes to call a pastor (BCO 20-4), to set the terms of the pastor’s call (BCO 20-6), and to both evaluate a pastor’s resignation or, if necessary, to initiate the dissolution of a pastoral relationship (BCO 23-1). (These actions are all subject to the review and consent of Presbytery.)

• The congregation nominates candidates for the office of ruling elder and deacon, and, after the Session has trained and examined the candidates, the congregation votes to approve those officers (BCO 24-1; Preliminary Principle #6).

• As a responsibility, the congregation vows appropriate submission and support to the pastor (BCO 21-6), and elders and deacons (BCO 24-6).

Judicial Rights and Responsibilities

The judicial processes of the PCA are extensive and a thorough explanation of them would go beyond the scope of this class. In this final section, I intend to lay out a few simple principles for understanding the judicial rights and responsibilities of members of the congregation of a church.

First, you are “free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship” (WCF 20.2). This means that the officers of the church can never demand anything from you beyond what Christ has commanded in the word, for all church power is “only ministerial and declarative” (BCO Preliminary Principle #7). 

Furthermore, this means that no judicial charge may be brought against you except what is demonstrated to be contrary to Scripture:

An offense, the proper object of judicial process, is anything in the doctrines or practice of a Church member professing faith in Christ which is contrary to the Word of God. The Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, together with the formularies of government, discipline, and worship are accepted by the Presbyterian Church in America as standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice. Nothing, therefore, ought to be considered by any court as an offense, or admitted as a matter of accusation, which cannot be proved to be such from Scripture. (BCO 29-1)

Beyond this, the BCO lays out a number of rights you have to a fair trial, including the right to representation by another communing member of the same church (BCO 32-19), the right to limit process against you from beginning no later than one year after an offense was committed (BCO 32-20), the right for your spouse not to be compelled to bear testimony against you (BCO 35-2), the right to cross-examine any witnesses (BCO 35-5), the right to appeal the decision of your church’s Session against you to the next higher court (BCO 42), and more.

Second, the corresponding responsibility to this is that you must cooperate with church investigations. The refusal to cooperate with lawful judicial proceedings is called “contumacy” (BCO 32-6), and someone found contumacious “shall be immediately suspended from the sacraments…for his contumacy” (BCO 33-2). In fact, contumacy is one of the required criteria for excommunicating someone from the church, as opposed to the lesser censure of indefinite suspension:

Excommunication is the excision of an offender from the communion of the Church. This censure is to be inflicted only on account of gross crime or heresy and when the offender shows himself incorrigible and contumacious. The design of this censure is to operate on the offender as a means of reclaiming him, to deliver the church from the scandal of his offense, and to inspire all with fear by the example of his discipline. (BCO 30-4)

Third, you have the right to challenge the decisions of your Session through a written complaint:

A complaint is a written representation made against some act or decision of a court of the Church. It is the right of any communing member of the Church in good standing to make complaint against any action of a court to whose jurisdiction he is subject, except that no complaint is allowable in a judicial case in which an appeal is pending. (BCO 43-1)

This is an important right, since it empowers you to ask the Session to review any decision if you believe those decisions to be contrary to the Word of God, our Confession and Catechisms, or our Book of Church Order. If you do not like the response of the Session to your complaint, you are permitted to take your complaint to the next higher court (BCO 43-2).

Subscribe now

2

Stuart Robinson, The Church of God as an Essential Element of the Gospel: And the Idea, Structure, and Functions Thereof. A Discourse in Four Parts (Philadelphia: Joseph M. Wilson, 1858), 42.

---

Other Posts in this Series

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

A Brief History of Presbyterianism

Note: These are the lecture notes for the first class of an 8-week series that I am teaching at Harvest Community Church, called “What Does it Mean to be Presbyterian?” This is by no means comprehensive, but a quick overview of some of the key historical moments that have led to the development of the Presbyterianism that we experience today. This surve…

Read more

4 years ago · Jacob Gerber

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

The Biblical Foundations for Presbyterian Church Government

Note: These are the lecture notes for the second class of an 8-week series that I am teaching at Harvest Community Church, called “What Does it Mean to be Presbyterian?” Links to the other class lecture notes may be found at the end of this post…

Read more

4 years ago · Jacob Gerber

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

The Form of Presbyterian Church Government

Note: These are the lecture notes for the third class of an 8-week series that I am teaching at Harvest Community Church, called “What Does it Mean to be Presbyterian?” Links to the other class lecture notes may be found at the end of this post…

Read more

4 years ago · Jacob Gerber

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

Introduction to the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)

Note: These are the lecture notes for the fourth class of an 8-week series that I am teaching at Harvest Community Church, called “What Does it Mean to be Presbyterian?” Links to the other class lecture notes may be found at the end of this post…

Read more

4 years ago · Jacob Gerber

This Week’s Sermon

This past Sunday, I had the privilege of preaching twice, in the morning and then again for our evening service. In the morning, I preached on the Beatitudes of Jesus, from Matthew 5:1–10.

I have never preached on the Beatitudes before, but I was fascinated by their structure, where the first four deal with our relationship to God (namely, a relationship of repentance), and the last four deal with our relationship to others (namely, in the way that we resemble God in our dealings with others).

Here is the introduction from the sermon notes:

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus offers the purest, most perfect wisdom the world has ever heard, in a distillation of only three chapters of material (Matt. 5–7). Within this Sermon, Jesus begins by a series of paradoxical statements about the blessedness of those whom the world would never consider to be blessed. Here, Jesus reveals the mysteries of a spiritual kingdom where the poor are rich, the hungry are satisfied, and the persecuted possess a kingdom. Here, Jesus teaches us about the centrality of repentance toward God, and the need for us to resemble God himself. Here, Jesus teaches that blessed are the repentant who resemble God.

(Read More)

Then, here is the full sermon (transcript here):

Then, Sunday evening, I preached on Matthew 5:8 specifically: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” There is no video, and the audio quality of the recording wasn’t great, but here is the link to the sermon.

This topic of seeing God is deeply significant to me. Here was a sermon I preached a couple of years ago on seeing God face to face, from 1 Corinthians 13:8–13:

This is one of my personal favorites of the sermons I have preached.

Recent Posts

Also, if you missed it, here is the next installment on my series on Presbyterianism:

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

Introduction to the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)

Note: These are the lecture notes for the fourth class of an 8-week series that I am teaching at Harvest Community Church, called “What Does it Mean to be Presbyterian?” Links to the other class lecture notes may be found at the end of this post…

Read more

4 years ago · Jacob Gerber

In this class, my goal was to give a brief history of the denomination, talk through some of the distinctives of the denomination, and then try to identify the significant debates current in the PCA.

Have a blessed Lord’s Day tomorrow!

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

I am delighted to serve as a Teaching Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America. The PCA has been a faithful witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ both here in the United States, and around the world. It was through the PCA that I was first exposed to Reformed theology and covenant theology, as summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Even before I could affirm everything that the PCA believers (especially infant baptism!), I remember thinking, “These people take the Bible seriously!”

Today, I have been privileged to have served as a pastor at Harvest Community Church (PCA) since 2015, and before as an assistant pastor at another PCA church from 2011. In that time, I have seen good times (baptisms, conversions, outreach, missions), and I have seen hard times (church discipline, apostasy, conflict, division). Some of these were at a small-scale, private level, and others are currently being hotly debated publicly within the denomination. 

In this class, I want to offer a (very) brief summary of the history of the PCA in 1973, but then spend most of this lesson exploring some of the significant themes that shaped the identity of our denomination from its inception.

(Very) Brief History of the PCA

The PCA is the continuing church of the southern Presbyterian Church, the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS). The PCUS had split from the PCUSA in 1861 because of the Civil War.1 The PCUS does not exist independently any longer. In 1983, the PCUS merged back with the northern Presbyterian church (at the time, the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America—the UPCUSA), to re-form the PCUSA, which exists to this day.

There are a few notable distinctions in polity between northern Presbyterianism and southern Presbyterianism, especially as forged in the 19th century debates between James Henley Thornwell and Charles Hodge. Hart and Muether identify the questions of the parity of Teaching and Ruling Elders (especially as to whether Ruling Elders lay hands on Teaching Elders at ordination services) and whether missions organization may be overseen by boards, or whether commissions must be formed.2

Northern Presbyterians (following Hodge) hold to more of a three-office view, where ministers are distinguished from Ruling Elders, so that Ruling Elders may not lay hands on ministers at ordination. Southern Presbyterians (following Thornwell), on the other hand, hold to a two-office view, where Teaching Elders and Ruling Elders are two classes of one office, so that Ruling Elders do lay hands on Teaching Elders at ordination. Furthermore, Northern Presbyterians believed that boards (separate from presbyteries) could manage missions work, while Southern Presbyterians favored commissions (e.g., representative bodies who act as presbyteries).

Whereas the Orthodox Presbyterian Church formed in 1936 out of the PCUSA, the PCA formed in 1973 out of the PCUS. So, the OPC has inherited more of the northern Presbyterian perspective, so that missions and church plants are centrally funded through the denomination, and ministers are distinguished from Ruling Elders. The PCA, on the other hand, has inherited more of the southern Presbyterian perspective, so that missionaries and church planters are installed by commissions of presbyteries (although they raise their own support), and Teaching Elders and Ruling Elders operate with equality in the courts of the church.

Additionally, different issues shaped the formation of the OPC and the PCA. Whereas the PCUSA (and, hence, the conservatives who formed the OPC) faced the challenge of modernism, the PCUS (and, hence, the conservatives who formed the PCA) faced a slightly different set of challenges: the social gospel, evolution, and (Barthian) neo-orthodoxy.3

In the face of these challenges, three organizations of laymen rose up to combat the doctrinal declension in the PCUS: the Southern Presbyterian Journal (later, Presbyterian Journal) in 1942 under L. Nelson Bell (later, the father-in-law to Billy Graham), Presbyterian Evangelistic Fellowship (PEF) in 1964 under Bill Hill, and the Concerned Presbyterians in 1965 under Kenneth Keyes. Additionally, PCUS ministers formed the Presbyterian Churchman United in 1969, coordinated by John E. Richards.4

Ultimately, the Presbyterian Church in America (originally, the National Presbyterian Church) organized the first General Assembly at Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham, AL, on December 4–7, 1973. Ruling Elder W. Jack Williamson was elected as the first Moderator, and Teaching Elder Morton Smith was elected as the first Stated Clerk.5

While many significant things have happened since 1973, one of the most significant took place in 1982, during the joining and receiving of the Reformed Presbyterian Church (Evangelical Synod) into the PCA. The RPCES brought in a deep interest in the cultural implications of Reformed theology (especially through one of its more famous pastors, Francis Schaeffer), along with two educational institutions: Covenant College and Covenant Theological Seminary.6

In 1973, the PCA comprised 16 Presbyteries, 260 churches, and 41,232 members. In 2021, the PCA comprised 88 Presbyteries, 1928 churches, and 383,000 members.7

Subscribe now

The PCA’s Threefold Vision and Identity

From the founding, the PCA’s motto has been: “Faithful to the Scriptures, True to the Reformed Faith, and Obedient to the Great Commission.” What an extraordinary vision for the church!

The PCA’s threefold vision is undoubtedly positive, and has been a source of unity within the denomination since the beginning. Nevertheless, the priorities expressed in that vision have been differently interpreted and implemented through the history of the PCA, leading to differences within the denomination that we are still wrestling with.

Let’s examine each of the three parts of this statement.

Faithful to the Scriptures

We seek to be, first, and foremost, faithful to the Scriptures. That is, the PCA recognizes the Scriptures alone are the only rule of faith, life, and practice (WCF 1.2; 31.3). We believe that  “The Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him” (WSC Q2). More than anything else, we strive to be faithful to Christ by preaching and teaching the Bible.

Of course, seeking to be “faithful to the Scriptures” requires a shared understanding of what the Scriptures teach. Within the PCA, the Westminster Confession and Catechisms express our understanding of the teaching of Scriptures. This point is articulated in a couple of different places in our constitutional documents. For example, the BCO describes our confessions as “standard expositions of the teaching of Scripture”:

…The Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, together with the formularies of government, discipline, and worship are accepted by the Presbyterian Church in America as standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice…. (BCO 29-1)

Most importantly, all officers take the following vows prior to ordination:

2. Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures; and do you further promise that if at any time you find yourself out of accord with any of the fundamentals of this system of doctrine, you will on your own initiative, make known to your Presbytery/Session the change which has taken place in your views since the assumption of your ordination vow? (BCO 21-5; 24-6)

Still, the denomination has debated what it means to “receive and adopt” our confessional statements since the beginning. The 1982 PCA Study Report on Confessional Subscription, for example, advocates a view of system subscription that acknowledges the doctrines in the Westminster Standards to be the “very doctrines of the Word.”

The 10th General Assembly (1982) of the PCA adopted the following definition:

Q. 1. Does the second ordination vow require the Presbyterian Church in America church officers to embrace as Bible truth each and every statement in our confessional standards?

A. When an officer of the Presbyterian Church in America subscribes to the Confessional Standards, he is declaring them to be the confession of his faith with reference to doctrine, worship, and government, recognizing that the Word of God written is the only infallible, inerrant, unamendable rule of faith and practice.8

While the PCA never amended the subscription vows for officers, the PCA did adopt constitutional amendments that permit officers to declare differences from the Standards (see BCO 21-4), and for those differences to be approved by the Presbytery. While there is wide unity on a number of confessional issues, there are a number of questions about what the PCA really does believe that the Scriptures teach on a few particular points.

Most notably, many officers in the PCA have declared theological differences from what the Westminster Standards teach about how the 2nd Commandment forbids making images of Jesus (WLC 109), and about how the 4th Commandment requires us to forsake worldly recreations (WCF 21.7–8; WLC 115–21). Officially, we confess these doctrines as biblical; however, there is a large debate about whether officers of the church may publicly teach and practice contrary to these doctrines.

So, while the PCA enjoys a great deal of unity in faithfulness to the Scriptures, there are a few important points on which the PCA does not entirely agree about what is Scriptural and what is not.

True to the Reformed Tradition

Second, we want to be true to the Reformed tradition. The PCA is not an attempt to clear away church history in a (misguided) attempt to get back to the early church. We take church history seriously, and we self-consciously stand in the Reformed tradition. The PCA is a “continuing church,” carrying on the tradition we received from Scotch/Irish Presbyterians before us, holding to the doctrinal standards articulated by the Westminster Assembly, from the Scottish Presbyterian tradition led by John Knox, which was influenced by the Genevan Reformation led by John Calvin, which followed on the heels of the German Reformation through Martin Luther, which reformed—but did not cast away—the catholic church that traces all the way back to our Lord Jesus himself. We are not attempting to create something new. We are always and only attempting to preserve what we have “received,”—that is, the gospel tradition that has been “delivered to [us] as of first importance, what [Paul] also received” (1 Cor. 15:1, 3).

The church may not add to Scripture; however, the church is constantly asking new questions (posed both from those inside and outside the church), which drives us back to the Scriptures. We are not gaining new revelation, but fresh insights from “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Our tradition is not something that stands above or even beside Scriptures, but is only the church’s history of attempts to wrestle with, and under the authority of, the Scriptures. This tradition is especially represented in our doctrine, our worship, and our polity.

Even so, the PCA has a longstanding debate about what kind of Reformed tradition to which we seek to be faithful. The PCA has sought to be as “big-tent” of a denomination as possible, where we welcome in as many people and churches as possible. In his history of the PCA, For a Continuing Church: The Roots of the Presbyterian Church in America, Sean Michael Lucas writes this:

It seems incontrovertible that the majority of the PCA founders desired to form a conservative mainline Presbyterian church. That is to say, their orientation was toward continuing the largely evangelical and evangelistic emphases of the southern church while upholding the inerrancy of the Bible and the truth of the [Westminster Confession of Faith]. So they did not intend to get bogged down in battles over details in the Reformed system of doctrine, nor did they desire to create litmus tests on doctrinal matters as the determining factor for shared ministries. Their instincts were to be evangelical Presbyterians—but evangelical Presbyterians who had the cultural influence that they had known as part of a mainline Protestant denomination.9

This is especially true in the various methods that the PCA has employed for ministry. Lucas especially ties the desire to be “big tent” to the evangelistic, missional impulse of the denomination. In this connection, he describes the eventual results that this vision has had for the PCA:

This evangelistic imperative, both domestically and internationally, has tended to keep the PCA in the middle of the Reformed tradition theologically. Undoubtedly, this centrist instinct has the added benefit of keeping as many people and churches as possible within the “big tent” of the PCA for the purpose of mission and witness. Yet the centrist instinct is itself a reflection of the founders’ intention: they envisioned a “Continuing Presbyterian Church,” a church that continued the mainline approach to evangelism, missions, and witness that they felt characterized the southern Presbyterian church at its best. In order to do this, the founders emphasized a Reformed evangelicalism that emphasized core truths, starting with inerrancy and flowing outward into the fixed points of orthodoxy and winsome Calvinism. Whenever difficult doctrinal matters came up to the General Assembly—whether theonomy, creation days, or confessional subscription—the PCA has tended toward solutions that move toward the center and keep as many people within the church as possible. That evangelical and evangelistic instinct is exactly what the founders intended: that the PCA would be a conservative mainline body representing evangelical Presbyterianism.10

As we saw in the previous section, this desire to “keep as many people within the church as possible” means that the church must live with some significant differences on fundamental questions about what the Scriptures actually teach. Particularly for those who believe that our Confessional Standards reflect the “very doctrines of the Word,” a rejection of images of Christ and faithful Sabbath-keeping are fundamental to the Reformed tradition.

A similar debate appears regarding worship. The PCA is unique among Reformed and Presbyterian churches in that we do not have an official, constitutional guidelines for our worship. While we have an extensive Directory for Worship, the PCA did not make the entire Directory constitutional, so that only a few chapters on the membership, the sacraments, and (recently) the nature of marriage are constitutional. 

In practice, this means that the PCA has a wide variety of worship styles. Many see this kind of diversity in our practices as a strength. Again, however, some believe that the Regulative Principle of Worship as articulated in the Westminster Standards is not only Scriptural, but fundamental to the Reformed tradition of worship. This has led to an ongoing debate about where biblical worship ends and permissible diversity begins.

The roots of the PCA go deeply into Reformed theology and worship. Nevertheless, there are disagreements about what constitutes the fundamentals of the Reformed tradition, and therefore about what faithfulness to the Reformed tradition would require of us.

Obedient to the Great Commission

Finally, the PCA seeks to be obedient to the Great Commission. We long to make disciples of all nations, and the PCA has a rich history of sending missionaries around the globe, as well as investing in church planting closer to home. We do not merely want to win converts, but we want to make disciples by baptizing them and teaching them to obey everything that Jesus has commanded us (Matt. 28:18–20). By God’s grace, the PCA has grown steadily throughout our history. 

While the PCA has a rich history of evangelism, church planting, and worldwide missions, there is another division within the PCA about how to go about doing this. Once again, those who believe that the Westminster Standards express the “very doctrines of the Word” believe in the spirituality of the church:

Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate. (WCF 31.4)

That is, the church should handle spiritual matters. We should proclaim the demands of God’s law, and we should announce the gospel of God’s grace toward us in Jesus Christ. We should make disciples, lead them in worship, and teach them to serve. 

Many in the PCA, though, have a much stronger view of the church’s responsibility for cultural engagement. These leaders have advocated for the transformation of culture by the work of the church as the church in the spheres of business, government, and the arts. No one disagrees that individual Christians may (and should!) pursue work in these spheres, and even seek to improve these spheres as much as possible. To what degree, though, is this the mission of the church? Furthermore, what depth of societal transformation can we expect in this life?

To be sure, the Bible says much about the way that we ought to live our lives. There are, however, two major problems with the view that sees the transformation of culture as the mission of the church. The first problem has to do with a confusion and (in some cases) a corruption of the gospel itself. It shifts the church from preaching Christ’s gospel of salvation for individual sinners, to a gospel that seeks to reform society.

For example, there has been a significant emphasis on social justice. I am not suggesting that political and social initiatives should be off-limits for debate and discussion among Christians. I am, however, very concerned that we avoid suggesting that such initiatives are the proper mission of the church.

Sean Michael Lucas noted that one of the major intellectual problems in the PCUS that eventually drove conservatives to form the PCA was the social gospel. About the social gospel, he writes this:

The phrase [social gospel] described the effort to relate biblical principles to social needs and challenges raised by the industrialization and urbanization of the early twentieth century. But the Social Gospel came to represent a major shift in the way important theological categories were used. In short, the Social Gospel represented a movement away from individual to corporate categories for theology. Sin was defined in social and systemic terms—the oppressive social structures that kept people from achieving their potential. Salvation, likewise, was the removal of those structures in order to maximize human potentialities and make a more just world. Also, distinctive about the Social Gospel movement was a genuine embrace of the historical Jesus and his teaching as the norm for social action; “What would Jesus do?” was the question that Social Gospel promoters such as Charles Sheldon desired Christians to ask themselves. In particular, the question was what Jesus would do in order to realize the kingdom of God as an earthly reality, bringing social harmony in its wake. All natural and political processes that brought God’s kingdom to closer fulfillment were seen as the work of God’s Spirit; hence, the Social Gospel emphasized the immanence of God, going so far as to say that the spirit of the age was “the age of the Spirit.”11

Lucas wrote this in 2006, and in 2022, it is hard to avoid seeing the connections between the “Social Gospel” and the social justice movement for which some in the PCA are advocating today.

Second, the desire for the church to engage with culture, to influence culture, to transform culture, and/or to redeem culture has sometimes led the PCA to be influenced by the culture (rather than vice versa) in significant ways, especially in the area of sexual ethics. Most prominently, the PCA is in the middle of a very difficult struggle to clarify what exactly we believe about human sexuality.

On the positive side, the PCA released a tremendous report that is very clear about sexual ethics. This report was commended by the 2021 General Assembly by a nearly unanimous vote. From the Bible, our Confession, and this study report, we have clarity for dealing with sexual sins as sin, identifying even sinful affections as truly and properly sin (WCF 6.5; WLC 99.2), leading people to repent from such sin and to seek forgiveness and sanctification, and “encouraging them, as a part of the process of sanctification, to leave behind identification language rooted in sinful desires [e.g., ‘gay Christian’].”12

Nevertheless, rather than consistently dealing with sinful affections according to a spiritual framework of the mortification of sins and transformation through the sanctifying work of Christ, the PCA is divided over a (secular) psychological view of sexuality that sees sinful desires in this area as something that is largely fixed and unchanging. There is a vigorous debate, for example, about how much we can really expect from someone’s sanctification regarding the transformation of their sexual desires, even with such a clear statement as this in our PCA’s Study Report:

The goal is not just consistent fleeing from, and regular resistance to, temptation, but the diminishment and even the end of the occurrences of sinful desires through the reordering of the loves of one’s heart toward Christ. Through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, we can make substantial progress in the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord (Rom. 6:14-19; Heb. 12:14; 1 John 4:4; WCF 13.1).13

Once again, while the PCA is unified around a desire to make disciples of all nations, we are wrestling with a few difficult questions about how precisely to go about accomplishing that task.

The Future of the PCA

I love the PCA, and I am proud of our history; however, these last few years have brought about a number of painful struggles. I have, however, been encouraged by a number of positive developments within the denomination.

First, theological controversies may not always be fun, but they are always the way in which doctrine is clarified. This was true when the early church had to debate about whether circumcision was required for Gentiles to be saved (Acts 15:1). Once the matter was settled, the decision that came out of that debate strengthened the churches (Acts 15:31–32, 41; 16:5). When Arius troubled the church by saying that the Son was not God, the church clarified the Scriptural teaching of the Trinity and the full deity of the Son in the Nicene Creed—a creed we recite until this day. When Nestorianism and Eutychianism obscured the glory of Christ’s incarnation, the Council at Chalcedon gave us a formula that we still use to clarify our Christology. It was the doctrinal corruption of the Roman Catholic Church that led eventually to the creation of the Westminster Standards.

In sum, theological controversy leads to credal and confessional clarity. So also today, God is using these controversies to force us back to the Scriptures so that we may prayerfully clarify what God has actually spoken about these matters.

Second, and most importantly, Christ Jesus remains the King of his Church. He is still on his throne, and he is still executing “the office of a king, in subduing us to himself, in ruling and defending us, and in restraining and conquering all his and our enemies” (WSC Q26). The gates of hell cannot prevail against Christ’s church, for Satan is bound so that Christ may plunder the nations to liberate his people from the tyranny of sin through his gospel.

For the glory of Christ and the good of his people, may the Lord bless the Presbyterian Church in America now and forevermore!

Subscribe now

13

“Report of the Ad-Interim Committee on Human Sexuality to the Forty-Eighth General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (2019–2020),” 10, l. 16–20.

---

Other Posts in this Series

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

A Brief History of Presbyterianism

Note: These are the lecture notes for the first class of an 8-week series that I am teaching at Harvest Community Church, called “What Does it Mean to be Presbyterian?” This is by no means comprehensive, but a quick overview of some of the key historical moments that have led to the development of the Presbyterianism that we experience today. This surve…

Read more

4 years ago · Jacob Gerber

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

The Biblical Foundations for Presbyterian Church Government

Note: These are the lecture notes for the second class of an 8-week series that I am teaching at Harvest Community Church, called “What Does it Mean to be Presbyterian?” Links to the other class lecture notes may be found at the end of this post…

Read more

4 years ago · Jacob Gerber

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

The Form of Presbyterian Church Government

Note: These are the lecture notes for the third class of an 8-week series that I am teaching at Harvest Community Church, called “What Does it Mean to be Presbyterian?” Links to the other class lecture notes may be found at the end of this post…

Read more

4 years ago · Jacob Gerber

Last week, I preached on Matthew 4:12–25, an overview passage to introduce Jesus’ public ministry of word and deed. Here is the introduction from the sermon notes:

When Jesus defeated Satan’s temptations, Jesus bound that strong man in order to begin plundering his house (Matt. 12:29). Satan succeeded in binding Adam and Eve (and all their descendants after them), but Jesus turned the tables to bind Satan. Now that Jesus has been qualified and hailed as king, baptized and anointed as Christ, and established victorious as a conqueror, he begins the public phase of his rescue mission. The second half of Matthew 4 offers a summary of Jesus’ message, mandate, and ministry that is marked by discipleship. Here, we see the blueprints for Jesus’ building of his kingdom. Here, we see the initial overview of how Jesus came to make disciples of all nations.

(Read More)

Then, here is the sermon in full (transcript here):

Recent Posts

This week, I published an article that I have been working on for a long time about legalism. I have often heard legalism defined as adding to the law, to make it more strict. (I have even used this definition in the past!)

A few months ago, I stumbled on some reading that dramatically altered the way I understood legalism, and I thought it was extremely helpful for thinking about my own life as a Christian, as well as my ministry as a pastor. If you didn’t catch it when I shared it earlier, please check it out now:

Two Pathways | Jacob Gerber

Beware the Leaven of the Pharisees

In every age, the church must be vigilant to avoid legalism. We must never be like the Pharisees, who “tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger” (Matt. 23:24). God tells us that his commandments are not burdensome (1 John 5:3), but to…

Read more

4 years ago · Jacob Gerber

Have a blessed Lord’s Day tomorrow!

Subscribe now

The danger of legalism is one that all true ministers of the gospel of Christ must take with the utmost seriousness. Nevertheless, do we really understand what Christ was condemning when he warned us to “Watch and beware the leaven of the Pharisees” (Matt. 16:6)?

In this article, I want to raise the question of whether we understand the spirit and nature of legalism correctly, and to explore whether this misunderstanding may seriously skew our gospel ministry.

The Legalism of the Pharisees: Not too Strict, but too Lax

What exactly was the legalism that the Pharisees were teaching? A common thought is that the Pharisees were legalistic by being overly strict about the law, while the Sadducees were overly lax about the law. That is, the Pharisees are commonly characterized as legalists, and the Sadducees as libertines. While this view is both common and convenient as a way of categorizing the two groups, it does not match either the historical records or the biblical records, especially regarding the Pharisees.

Both Jewish and Christian historians have recognized that the Pharisees were trying to simplify the law, rather than complicating it. So, the Jewish scholar Alexander Guttmann writes:

Emerging from the ranks of the people, the rabbis spoke in terms intelligible to the populace and were therefore able to lead the people in accordance with their teachings, a feat the Prophets had been unable to accomplish. Uncompromising idealists, the Prophets demanded perfection and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth in their own time; therefore, they were doomed to failure. Prophetic Judaism never became a reality but remained only an ideal, a goal, like Plato's Republic. The rabbis were idealists, too, but they were at the same time pedagogues. In guiding their people, they took the realities of life (among them the weakness of human beings) into consideration. They upheld the Torah as the divine code, but at the same time they recognized the need for harmonizing the Torah with the ever-changing realities of life.1

The mission of the Pharisees was not to create a set of extra rules to prop themselves up—even if this may have been the eventual result. Rather, the mission of the Pharisees was to boil down the law to principles, practices, and techniques that normal people could understand and keep.

To be sure, the Pharisees were legalists. Their legalism, however, was the result of trying to reduce the law down to something manageable in the lives of the people. This did not leave them to become too strict, but, far too lax in comparison to the fullness of what God required. 

Subscribe now

The Bare Text of the Law vs. The Full Ethics of the Moral Law

Old Testament scholar Gordon Wenham helps to see this point by observing that the text of the law does not give us a complete accounting for the fullness of what the moral law actually requires. Or, as Wenham puts it, there is a “gap” between the bare text of the law in the Bible and the fullness of the ethics (moral law) required by the Bible.2 So, the bare text of the law “sets a minimum standard of behaviour, which if transgressed attracts sanction,” but the “ethical ceiling is as high as heaven itself, for a key principle of biblical ethics is the imitation of God. Man made in God’s image must act in a godlike way: ‘Be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy’ (Lev. 19:2).”3

From this, we can see that the legalism of the Pharisees manifested itself in two ways: (1) they sought to keep the bare text of the law, rather than the fullness of the biblical ethic (moral law) of what it means to imitate God; and (2) they boiled down the full biblical ethic of the law into manageable principles that seemed to make the law possible to keep. 

New Testament scholar J. Gresham Machen makes this point powerfully:

The legalism of the Pharisees, with its regulation of the minute details of life, was not really making the Law too hard to keep; it was really making it too easy. Jesus said to His disciples, “Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.” The truth is, it is easier to cleanse the outside of the cup than it is to cleanse the heart. If the Pharisees had recognized that the Law demands not only the observance of external rules but also and primarily mercy and justice and love for God and men, they would not have been so readily satisfied with the measure of their obedience, and the Law would then have fulfilled its great function of being a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ. A low view of law leads to legalism in religion; a high view of law makes a man a seeker after grace.4

Another New Testament scholar, Moisés Silva, also affirms this point: “It turns out, then, that Jesus, who like the Old Testament prophets demanded perfection (Mt 5:48), would have been critical of the Pharisees, not because they obeyed the Torah too strictly, but because they interpreted it too loosely.”5

It is wrong, then, to define legalism as being too strict about God’s law. A better definition for legalism is the attempt to be justified on a legal basis. Certainly, legalism can move us to be overly strict, but this would have to do with a self-conscious effort to do more than God requires, as though we could merit ourselves extra credit. This is called supererogation, and the Westminster Confession of Faith rightly rejects such legalism (WCF 16.4).

More often, however, I think the spirit of the age today tends to follow the Pharisees in seeking to be justified on a relaxed legal basis: “As long as I’m not doing _________, then I’m fine. The law doesn’t ever say that I can’t do _________ or _________.”

The Towering Requirement of the Law Requires Much More Abundance of Grace

In the Ten Commandments, God gives a comprehensive view of his moral law (the biblical ethic), but he puts those requirements in summary form (“summarily comprehended”; WLC 98). It is in the summarization of the law that we see the “gap” between the bare text of the law and the ethics required of us. 

Jesus himself teaches this approach in his exposition of the Ten Commandments during the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:17). There, he explains that the full scope of the Ten Commandments (properly understood) will condemn even the slightest inclinations of our hearts toward sin.

So, Jesus insists that the Sixth Commandment summarizes an entire ethic that forbids not only murder, but even anger rising in our hearts (Matt. 5:21–26). Similarly, the Seventh Commandment summarizes the fullness of the moral law that not only prohibits adultery, but even the lust that arises unbidden when a man looks at another woman (Matt. 5:27–30). Again, the Ninth Commandment summarizes the full scope of God’s moral standard that not only prohibits perjury in a court setting, but also requires us to speak simply and honestly in all our daily interactions (Matt. 5:33–37).

In sum, Jesus teaches that the Ten Commandments are a summary of an ethical standard that is perfect and absolute: “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48).

Jesus’ exposition of the Ten Commandments, then, does not legalistically add to the requirements of the Commandments. Rather, Jesus helps us to see comprehensively the infinitely high standards of God’s moral law. Yes, the moral law in the Bible is impossible for us to keep. That impossibly high standard, then, points us to our “much more” need for an “abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness…through the one man Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:17). 

The more clearly we see the full requirements of the law, the better view we have of the magnificence of Christ's gospel. As Machen wrote, “A low view of law leads to legalism in religion; a high view of law makes a man a seeker after grace.”

Beware the Leaven of the Pharisees

My concern in this article is to remind us of our Savior’s warning: “Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:19–20; my emphasis).

The danger of legalism lurks wherever we would relax God’s law from its high-as-heaven standard, dragging it down to a standard low enough for us to keep. Beware the leaven of the Pharisees!

The painful truth is that none of us can reach God’s perfect standard. Rather, before his standard, we must tremble, crying out, “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” (Rom. 7:24).

But it is here that we see the beauty of the gospel all the more clearly, being reminded that “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1). The grace of God in Jesus Christ abounds so much more than the demands of the moral law for sinners like you and me. 

In our justification, this means that Christ provides his perfect righteousness to us freely, by faith and through grace.

In our sanctification, this means that God transforms us in “the whole man” (WCF 13.2), teaching us to obey the spiritual demands of the law that reach all the way into “the understanding, will, affections, and all other powers of the soul; as well as words, works, and gestures” (WLC 99.2). Sanctification does not only address the outward demands of the law, but rather transforms us even down to the desires of our souls.

Only by seeing the perfection of the law will we see the full glory and beauty of the gospel, to justify us now and to sanctify us progressively over time.

Let us, then, rejoice—not because we are capable of keeping some minimized (i.e., legalistic) version of the law, but in view of the much-more abundant gospel mercies of God toward miserable sinners: “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 7:25)!

Subscribe now