The Seriousness of the Sin of Remarriage after Divorce, part 3

This is a series of posts designed to convince people of the Biblical truth that remarriage after divorce is adultery and that the fact that the modern American Christian church has by-and-large rejected this teaching is proof that it is in a state of apostasy.  This article is the third in the series.  Click here to read the first article.

Too Legalistic?

The preacher in my church once gave a sermon on legalism and defined it as “when you care more about rules (or commandments) than you care about people”.  Actually, loving people comes second to loving God (Matthew 22:36-40).  And I would consider legalism to include more than just that.  But for purposes of this discussion, I will use his definition.  I will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am absolutely not being legalistic at all.  The probability is greater that I am not a real person, but only a figment of your imagination than the probability that I am being legalistic on this issue.

Suppose a homosexual couple came to your church and asked if they could become members of your church and asked if their homosexual lifestyle would be accepted in the church.  The elders of the church might tell them “no” and they may quote scriptures about the sinfulness of homosexuality to back up their decision.    But the homosexual couple could say this: 

We have been “married” for years and over the years we adopted many children.  We fed, clothed and nurtured these children.  We gave these children a good education and taught them to be honest, responsible, caring and compassionate.  Some of them have already grown up and have become good, hardworking, taxpaying citizens.  It might have been better if they had both a mother and a father to raise them, but if we hadn’t adopted them, they may have had no parents at all.  We realize that the Bible talks about homosexuality as a sin in some places, but you have to take other parts of the Bible into consideration like the Golden Rule, “do not judge lest you be judged…” and things like that.  You are asking us to break up a family unit which has been helping children for many years.  You are legalistic.  You care about your rules more than you care about people.

What would you say to this?  The right answer is to still say “no”, but why?  Why isn’t this a legalistic position?  The answer is that there are commandments which are moral absolutes.  There are also some other commandments in the Bible which we are not to take as moral absolutes.  If we do, then we are being legalistic.  As an example (Luke 13:15), Jesus taught that it is not wrong to pull a donkey out of a pit on the Sabbath (Israel was under the Old Covenant at that time).  In the New Testament, there are a lot of commandments about women.  They should submit to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22), cover their heads when they pray or prophesy (1 Corinthians 11:5), not wear jewelry (1 Peter 3:3), and be silent in the church (1 Corinthians 14:35).  There is also a commandment not to have meals in the church (1 Corinthians 11:22).  These are not moral absolutes and they should not be taken as black and white.  There are ways that you could take these commandments too seriously and in a way that would be caring about the commandment more than you care about people.

So how do we know when a commandment is a moral absolute and when we must be careful not to take it too legalistically?  First, we must realize that it is God, not us, who decides which commandments are moral absolutes and which are not.  Second, we must realize that, for each commandment, the answer to this question lies in the Bible.  In order to get a correct answer, you must throw away any preconceived ideas that come from what just seems right to you (Proverbs 14:12), what you have always been taught (Jeremiah 9:5, 14), or what the majority of so-called Christians believe (Matthew 7:14).  That last reason is an especially flimsy one since the position of the majority of self-professing Christians in this country on many issues (including remarriage after divorce) has changed in the not too distant past and most likely will continue to change in the future.  You should instead answer this question by paying attention to how the commandment is worded, the context in which it is found, and what else the Bible has to say about the subject.  Ask yourself, “What is the purpose of this commandment?” and “What will happen to someone who disobeys it?”  Then find the answer to these questions in the Bible, and not by relying on preconceived, manmade, visceral ideas.

Returning to the example of the homosexual couple, consider those two questions.  Romans 1 clearly teaches that homosexuality is dirty and degrading.  I Corinthians 6:9-10 teaches that homosexuals will not inherit into the Kingdom of God.  There is only one other place for them to go.  That is why you can say unequivocally that it is unacceptable to accept an unrepentant homosexual couple into the membership of the church.  When someone’s eternal salvation is at stake, this far outweighs all other considerations.  This is why the other circumstances that were passionately appealed to by the hypothetical homosexual couple should be disregarded as completely irrelevant.  How else would you know that this is the right thing to do?

But Jesus does not just say, “if you are divorced, then don’t remarry”.  He calls it adultery.  This is one of the sins listed in I Corinthians 6:9-10 right along with homosexuality.  Anyone who does it is in the same boat as the homosexual.  Does it make any sense to say, “I will help someone to commit adultery because I care more about them more than I care about the commandment”?  How foolish! 

What I have written so far should be enough to convince you.  But I have mountains of more evidence to prove my point.  There is another sin which Jesus also calls adultery.  Matthew 5:27-28 says,

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Does it make any sense to say, “I am going to give some guy some pornography or help him to get his jollies looking at some other man’s wife because I care about him more than I care about keeping this commandment?”  Then why should the other kind of adultery be any different?  Why is it that remarriage after divorce is the only form of sexual immorality that is not considered dirty and degrading? 

I have heard some people say that they threw away their computers in order to overcome their addiction to internet pornography.  Is this too extreme?  Were they being legalistic?  I would hope that anyone reading this would not think so.  But just in case you do, I quote the verses following the commandment against lusting after women.  Matthew 5:29 says,

If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 

If that verse doesn’t convince you that Jesus is talking about a “black and white” issue, not subject to arguments against legalism, then nothing that Jesus could have said would convince you.  There is no stronger warning against sin anywhere in the Bible.  The verse indicates that one should take extreme measures to avoid the aforementioned activity and nothing in the Bible says this more clearly, strongly or urgently as this verse.  But Jesus doesn’t stop with eyes.  Matthew 5:30 says,

And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Verse 29 clearly goes with verse 28.  But what does verse 30 go with?  Read the next two verses!

It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

When you are reading Matthew chapter 5 you might immediately forget verse 30 while you are reading verses 31 and 32.  You might think that God wants you to mentally place an impenetrable wall between verses 30 and 31 so that nothing on one side of the wall has anything to do with what is on the other side of the wall.  If this is what you believe, then ask yourself, “Do I believe this because it is an application of a reasonable hermeneutic, or do I just not want to believe what Jesus is saying?”  Matthew chapter 5 is the first portion of a sermon preached by Jesus—the Sermon on the Mount to be exact.  It is not just a random collection of wise sayings or weak platitudes put in some random order.

We have the expression “to take one’s hand in marriage”.  In verses 33-37 Jesus tells us not to take oaths, something that is done by raising one’s right hand (c.f. Genesis 24:2-3).  The next thing Jesus commands starts out like this:

       If anyone slaps you on the right cheek...

First an extreme warning against sins committed with the hand, and then three sins in a row that are committed with the hand!  Notice that Jesus did not say, “…if your hands cause you to stumble…”  The expression is not “May I have your hands in marriage”.  And when you take an oath you raise your right hand, not both hands!  In every case, the hand is singular, not plural.  Yet there are many other places in the Bible where it explicitly mentions sins that are committed with both hands (Numbers 24:10, Deuteronomy 21:7, Judges 14:9, 2 Kings 19:18, 2 Kings 22:17, 2 Chronicles 32:19, 2 Chronicles 34:25, etc).  Even though this paragraph is definitely the weakest of all my arguments, it is very hard to believe that this is just a coincidence.  But I’m not done.  So far I have only examined the context of the first of the seven passages condemning remarriage after divorce.  There are still mountains of more evidence in the other six!

At the beginning of Matthew chapter 18, Jesus speaks of the value of children.  Jesus values them very highly.  When someone sins against a child it does more harm to them than to an adult.  That is why Jesus levies such a harsh statement against those who do it.  Everybody knows that divorce harms children.  But nobody talks about the damage done by remarriage after divorce.  Do you really think that a child of a divorced parent who remarries outside God’s boundaries won’t be more prone to commit sexual immorality because of it?  What if a child asked you about one the seven passages?  How would you explain it without nullifying the whole of Scripture?  You may teach your children that marriage is sacred, but if your actions don’t match your words, it probably won’t do any good at all.  And everybody talks about how bad it is for a homosexual couple to have joint custody of children as opposed to a “one man, one woman” household.  But there is more than one way for a child to have two dads.  Is one really that much more unhealthy than the other?  Better to have only a single parent than two adulterous ones.

After the verse about it being better to have a millstone put around your neck than to cause a child to sin, Jesus makes statements about it being better to remove body parts to avoid sinning than to be cast into hell similar to the statements in chapter 5 verses 29 and 30.  Then at almost the beginning of the very next chapter (Matthew 19:3-12) there is the second of the seven New Testament passages which condemn remarriage after divorce.  Then Jesus immediately returns to talking about the value of children (Matthew 19:13-15), which completes the circuit tying it back to the beginning of the previous chapter.  It is very clear that three ideas are tied together: remarriage after divorce is a sin, causing children to sin is a sin, and the idea that a sin can be so bad that one should prefer to remove his own body parts rather than to commit that sin.

In Mark 9:42-10:16 there is the same sequence.  First there is the commandment about causing children to sin and the millstone around the man’s neck.  Second there are the “body parts” verses.  Third, there is the commandment against remarriage after divorce.  And fourth Jesus ties it all together by returning to talk about the value of children.  The only difference is that these verses are even closer together than in Matthew 18-19.  There are only a couple of other verses in between. Mark 9:49-50 says,

Everyone will be salted with fire.  Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with each other.

If in our church, it is acceptable for people to change sex partners as much as they want as long as they have good intentions in the eyes of the elders, get counseling, and sign a worthless piece of paper before each one, then how are we any different than rest of world?  Like salt, the church is supposed to preserve things.  Marriage is one of those things.  But as it stands, we may as well be condoning cohabitation without marriage.  The salt has lost its saltiness.  As long as we are not following God’s Word, there will be at best a reluctant uneasiness, not real peace with one another.  This is because words like “till death do you part” and “and long as the both of you shall live” don’t mean anything at all anymore.  So why would you take anything else that anybody says seriously?

Despite that Luke was a doctor, there aren’t any verses about removing body parts in his gospel.  But immediately after Jesus’ teaching in Luke 16:18 against remarriage after divorce, there is a parable about a man being tormented in Hades because he would not repent.  This is not exactly what you would expect as a follow up to a non-“black and white” commandment like women should be silent in the church or women should not wear jewelry.  Immediately after this parable, there in Luke 17:2 is again teaching about the millstone around the neck and causing children to sin.  This is too much to be coincidence.  Note that Luke’s gospel does not include anything about divorce itself being sinful—only remarriage after divorce.  Thus there is nothing in Luke to connect Luke 17:2 to a commandment against divorce, only remarriage after divorce!

To summarize, the following facts are true:

1.      According to both Jesus and the apostle Paul, remarriage after divorce is adultery and adulterers cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.

2.      There are exactly three passages in the Bible which speak of it being more profitable to remove parts of your body than to have your whole body cast into hell because the parts of your body cause you to sin. 

3.      These three passages are the clearest, strongest and most urgent warnings against sin in the entire Bible.  They clearly indicate that Jesus is speaking of sins that one should go to extreme measures in order to avoid.

4.      A commandment against remarriage after divorce appears within the context of all three of these passages.  This is not true of any other commandment.

5.      Matthew 18-19, Mark 9-10 are probably referring to the same incident (and possibly also Luke 16-17), but Matthew 5 was definitely a different occasion.  Thus the three passages represent at least two instances in which Jesus condemned remarriage after divorce and gave the heaviest of all biblical warnings in the same breath.

6.      A very harsh warning against causing children to sin appears in each of the three synoptic gospels.

7.      Every time this harsh warning appears, there is always a commandment against remarriage after divorce within its context (sometimes before and sometimes after).  But there is not always a commandment against divorce itself.

8.      Every time a gospel writer records Jesus condemning remarriage after divorce, there always a warning about damnation within its context.  Such juxtaposition is recorded in four places which represent at least two occurrences.

9.      If you look up the non-“black and white” commandments which I mentioned earlier (or any others you might find) you will never find within their contexts even an implicit reference to damnation (such as a warning about sinners not entering the Kingdom of God), much less the word “hell”, “Hades” or the like.

Given these facts, read the last few words of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:27-31:

“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

You have even more than Moses and the prophets.  You have gospel of the New Testament.  If this isn’t good enough to convince you that remarriage after divorce is a “black and white” sin, then nothing that Jesus (the One who rose from the dead) could have said would have been good enough to convince you.  This legalism argument is nothing but a visceral reaction (i.e. gut feeling) against the truth.  

Click here to continue reading.

The Seriousness of the Sin of Remarriage after Divorce, part 1

This is a series of posts designed to convince people of the Biblical truth that remarriage after divorce is adultery and that the fact that the modern American Christian church has by-and-large rejected this teaching is proof that it is in a state of apostasy.  This article is the first in the series.

Introduction

I got into a discussion with the elders of my church about the sin of remarriage after divorce.  It is adultery. 

Whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.  If a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.  For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.  So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. If she does depart (from her husband), let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.

If you disagree with this, you are not disagreeing with me, but God.  Everything in the above two paragraphs is word-for-word from Jesus and the apostle Paul in the New Testament.  (Matthew 5:30-31, 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18, Romans 7:2-3, I Corinthians 7:10-11, 39 NKJV)  I take all these passages at face value without exception.  I am absolutely not saying anything more or anything less about the issue than what the New Testament clearly teaches.

The purpose of this article is to refute arguments which water down these Scriptures.  I categorize these arguments into three main catagories.  First, some have said that my position is an unforgiving one.  Second, they said this is not a “black and white” issue (in other words, I am being too legalistic).  Third, the Old Testament teachings uphold remarriage after divorce in some cases and we should regard these passages as applicable for us today.  Finally, I will address some other false arguments about exceptions to the rule.  

I want to be clear that I am not addressing the issue of when it is acceptable for someone to divorce their spouse or what to do if your spouse abandons you.  These are important questions, some of the Scriptures that I have quoted above are relevant to these issues, and they are somewhat related to the current topic, but they are outside the scope of what I want to talk about in this writing.  Just because someone may have biblical grounds for divorce, that doesn’t mean that they can remarry without sinning.  These are two distinct issues.

Note that, in this writing, all Scripture quotations come from the 2011 NIV unless otherwise noted.  Note that there are some slight differences between the 1984 NIV and the 2011 NIV.  For purposes of this discussion, the only one which I can see that is of any importance is that the term “marital unfaithfulness” is used in the 1984 version but is not used in the 2011 version.  In this respect, the 2011 version is more correct and actually in more in agreement with older versions, especially KJV and NKJV.  The Greek word is pornea, which obviously refers to fornication or sexual immorality.

Click here to continue reading.

Street Preachers

Last week, a group of friends of mine had a discussion about certain street preachers who frequent the U.C. campus. The majority of the group spoke against them because of their offensiveness and ineffectiveness and because their message drives people further away from the truth and causes them to sin. I have never heard these particular preachers preach, so I cannot judge them one way or the other, but I took the opposite view, partly for the sake of argument, partly because I think that most preaching goes too far in the opposite extreme, and partly because I’m just plain ornery. There were two specific points mentioned about the preachers that the group found objectionable. They told specific people that they had committed certain sins and that they wore T-shirts which said “Repent Pervert”. (There may have been others which I don’t remember.) I will get to these objections later, but first I want to clarify my position.

It is wrong to rejoice in the fact that other people are going to hell. It is wrong to tell people that they are going to hell without explaining the reason why. (The reason is that they have committed sins which greatly offend God.) Those who preach just to be seen by men have received their reward in full. Accusing people of committing sins, not knowing that the accusation is true, is slander, which is a sin. It is also wrong to present God as only being a God of wrath, and leaving out the part about his goodness and loving nature. If these preachers are doing any of these things, then I totally agree that they are doing more harm than good.

But, on the other hand, if the only objection is that they exposed sinful sexual behavior for the filthy and shameful thing that it is, then I do not agree. This was done over and over throughout both the Old and New Testaments. I don’t think that there is anything wrong with preaching about hell either. Jesus did it. How can anyone understand the significance of the death of Jesus if they aren’t convinced that it saves people from shame and hell? If saving people from hell is one of the most important reasons for witnessing to someone, isn’t it being disingenuous to leave that out of the message? In his sermon on the mount, Jesus preached about both sexual sin and hell, but did not mention either his own death on the cross or being the Son of God. On many occasions Jesus actually told his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah (e.g. Matthew 16:20) or about him dying on the cross because the people weren’t ready for this message yet. This is also why Jesus had a forerunner who preached a message of repentance first.

Someone said that Jesus only preached that way to the religious leaders. I do not agree with that argument. Jesus often preached more harshly to “teachers of the law”, scribes, “experts in the law” and Pharisees, but they are not the only ones he preached convicting messages to. (Not all Pharisees were “religious leaders”.) Jesus preached against sexual sins and warned of hell several times in sermons addressed to general audiences.

I don’t agree with the argument that the “Repent Pervert” T-shirt is wrong because it would drive people away from the truth or that no one would ever come to Christ because of such a statement. I guess I’m just weird. I am actually attracted by provocative statements such as this. Even if I know that I disagree with someone’s point of view, I tend to want to listen them more if they display some evidence that they are passionate about what they believe in.

I pointed out that after Jesus said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” (John 6:53, KJV), many no longer followed him (John 6:66). Also, Jesus told the rich young man to sell everything he had and give the money to the poor. Jesus could have had more followers if he had attended a “Developing Interpersonal Relationships” seminar, but that isn’t the point. There are lot passages which teach that it is better to fail at making a true convert than to succeed at making a false one. The Canaanite woman said to Jesus, “Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.” (Mark 7:28, KJV) This beautiful expression of humility would never have happened if Jesus hadn’t called her a dog.

Quoting Matthew 18:6 (or Mark 9:42 or Luke 17:2), one person said that this type of preaching would cause people to sin. But these passages refer to “offending one of these little ones that believe in me”, not causing adult unbelievers to sin, which is what we were talking about. The same principle applies to a certain extent, but how does wearing a “Repent Pervert” T-shirt cause someone to sin? In order for this argument to be valid, you must give a Biblical proof of this or at least give an example of an instance in which this actually happened to someone. Even if making a statement about how God abhors sin causes someone to sin, this does not count as “causing someone to sin” in the sense Jesus was talking about. For Paul said:

“What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead…But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.”

Romans 7:7-13 (KJV)

I am assuming that no one believes that street preaching itself is wrong, but only the manner in which these particular preachers were addressing their listeners. (I think someone said that it is better to speak to someone you know in a one-on-one conversation. This may be better in some situations for some Christians, but there are many, many, examples of preachers addressing large crowds of people probably not known to the speaker in the Bible. So why not do it today?) I also want to point out that there is nothing wrong with showmanship in street preaching. Some preachers may do this to draw attention to themselves, but it can be done with pure motives and draw attention to Christ in way that is not sinful. Ezekiel laid siege to a brick, laid on his left side for 390 days, laid on his right side for 40 days, and baked bread over cow’s dung to send the people God’s message (Ezekiel 4). Ezekiel was only responsible for delivering the message, not for people accepting it.

Finally, I will address the point made about pointing out certain people in the crowd and saying that they had committed a certain sin (or was committing it). Generally this would be wrong because you couldn’t know that someone had committed that sin if you don’t know them. But if, for example, a young woman in the crowd was scantily dressed, then it would be entirely appropriate to call her a fornicator. This is a much more clearly appropriate instance in which you should criticize someone for causing someone else to sin. Jesus said:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Matthew 5:27-30 (KJV)

In defense of the group, I would have to say that I tend to lean more the style of the Way of the Master than the preachers we were talking about. Instead of telling people they are sinners and telling them to repent, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort ask you if you have committed certain sins and then ask you how you think God (being just) will judge you. But this is a relatively subtle point and is not an absolute rule by any means. I also like Paul Washer.

In conclusion, I believe that the majority of preachers unnecessarily avoid controversial topics and effective teaching methods because they are so afraid of offending people. There are far fewer who are preaching a message which is too harsh. There is nothing wrong with preaching against sexual sins or about hell in a provocative manner. You shouldn’t worry for offensiveness about whether a message would drive someone further away from God if that is the only reason. The number of people who respond positively to a message in the short run is not the true measure of its success. Showmanship can be used in a beneficial way when preaching the gospel. You can’t fault someone for pointing out someone else’s sin if it is done in a loving manner and the sin actually happened.

Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.

Psalms 2:11 (KJV)

The LORD taketh pleasure in them that fear him, in those that hope in his mercy.

Psalms 147:11 (KJV)

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 1:7 (KJV)

“That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD: Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.”

Isaiah 30:9-11 (KJV)

And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.

Acts 24:25 (KJV)

And his inward affection is more abundant toward you, whilst he remembereth the obedience of you all, how with fear and trembling ye received him.

2 Corinthians 7:15 (KJV)

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Philippians 2:12 (KJV)

How Often Should Communion Be Taken?

My featured text for this piece is I Corinthians 11:17-34.

I grew up in the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ. We take communion every Sunday during worship services. Before bread and juice are passed, a member of the church addresses the congregation with a word concerning it. This is called communion mediation. “We’re told to take it as often as we meet,” was what one frequent communion mediation speaker would always say. As a child, I wondered, “Why do we not also always take it on Wednesday nights?” (We had a Bible study on that night.) Later, I examined the Scriptures and found no such phrase as “take it as often as you meet”. The closest thing is I Corinthians 11:20 which seems only to indicate that it was the practice of the Corinthian church to partake every time they met, but no universal commandment is given concerning the frequency of communion. Notice that it was also their practice to have a “love feast” along with it (v. 21-22), but this is clearly just a tradition also, and not necessary for the modern church.

Having said this, I can now say that it is my opinion that following the tradition of weekly communion is a good tradition. “Proclaiming the Lord’s death until he comes” (v. 26) is certainly something that I think we should do often. When visitors come to our services, they may ask what it is for. This opens the door for good witnessing opportunities. Notice that the church is the Lord’s body, which must be discerned (v. 29). I will not criticize other churches that do not hold to this practice, but there is a commandment in the Bible for Christians to partake (v. 24).

Must Churches Have Worship Services on Sunday?

Without question, believers must regularly meet together (Hebrews 10:25). But must Sunday be set aside as the day of assembling ourselves together, or will any day suffice?

I am not a Seventh Day Adventist, but I don’t think that there is reason to condemn them or churches that hold their services on Saturday nights instead of Sunday.

Except in regards to the actual event of the Resurrection, there is very little mention in the New Testament of the first day of the week. One example is Revelation 1:10 (possibly). The only place in the NT where any command is given concerning it is in I Corinthians 16:1-2. But this commandment only concerns the setting aside of money. The issue of a worship service is not explicitly addressed here. Furthermore, the churches of Galatia and “ye” (the church at Corinth) are particularly identified as the specific groups that this commandment is directed to. (Therefore, we need not take it as a general commandment for all churches at all times.) Note that the commandment was given because of a particular occasion, that is, Paul’s coming to Corinth.

Just because it was the habit of these churches to meet on Sundays doesn’t necessarily mean that that is the way it was to be for all churches from that time forward. At different times they had different practices. Acts 20:7 says that the disciples met together on the first day of the week to break bread. But in Acts 2:46 it says that they met daily for this purpose.

In Romans 14:5-6, it says, “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it…” (Romans 14:5-6, KJV) Colossians 2:16 says, “Let no man therefore judge you … in respect of an holyday…” Jesus said, “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” (John 7:24 KJV)

What if believers in another country met at random times during the week to avoid persecution? Will they be condemned for this? Should call them liberals?

The International Dateline divides the Pacific Ocean so that on one side of the line, the time is a full 24 hours later than on the other side. So what if you lived on an island that was right on the line? Then what day should you worship? The line is manmade (but necessary). What if God would have drawn the line in the Atlantic Ocean instead? In that case, all North and South American Christians would be worshipping on the wrong day!

I realize that the reason for this tradition is the Resurrection of Christ. There is nothing wrong with having this tradition. I Corinthians 16:1-2 and Acts 20:7 do provide a biblical precedent for it. Many business owners, such as the owner of Chick-fil-A, close their establishments on Sundays to promote church-going. This is a commendable deed and in no way is what I am saying meant to diminish such an act of financial sacrifice. But we need to realize that it is just a tradition.