The Purpose of a Pattern

I am aware from the very beginning that there are those who decry the idea of a pattern for our religious practices. Some are opposed to what they call “pattern mentality.” Should this cause us to move away from a discussion of such in an objective manner? I think not and so do many other people.

When you speak of a pattern, you speak of a plan to follow. You speak of that which is like a map or blueprint. It speaks of something that has been revealed to man in such a way that he can know what God will expect of him. This is surely the case in God’s dealings with man.

We should have no reluctance in using the term “pattern.” Didn’t God use that word when speaking to Moses (Exodus 25:9, 40)? Isn’t this the same word that was used by the writer of the book of Hebrews when he said, “See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount“ (Hebrews 8:5)? Listen to the apostle Paul, “Hold the pattern of sound words which thou hast heard from me“ (II Timothy 1:13, ASV). How would it be possible for one to hold a pattern if one did not exist? The term “hold” carries the idea of “adherence to.” But how could you adhere to that which does not exist? Yes, there is a pattern, and it serves a very useful purpose. We need to take the time to look at some of the purposes of a pattern.

A PATTERN GIVES DIRECTION

None of us should deny the need for direction for “it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps“ (Jeremiah 10:23). Such was surely the case with Noah in the long ago. When he was told to build the ark, he was told exactly what he was to do (Genesis 6:14). He was told to use “gopher wood.” That would mean only gopher wood. He was given directions as to its size. These directions were followed (Genesis 6:22). He had no trouble knowing what God wanted him to do for he had a pattern to follow.

We have a pattern which gives direction as to what we are to say. Peter points this out when he says, “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God“ (I Peter 4:11). So a man has a pattern to follow as he speaks. He is not left to say just anything in the name of the Lord. It must be according to and in harmony with the words of God. He has a pattern for His speech. This would surely be a part of the reason men are not to add to or take from the Word of the Lord. Such would alter the pattern and in so doing not say what God’s Word would say.

A PATTERN PROMOTES UNITY

If all follow the same pattern, and we must, then all will speak the same thing. There will be unity of speech if all “hold fast the pattern of sound words.” This would be a part of the reason Paul would say, “And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also“ (II Timothy 2:2). Take a moment to look at that passage. Paul says, “the things.” That would mean something specific, something definite, something understandable. It would mean the propositional truth that Timothy heard from Paul. It would be the teaching of an apostle. This becomes the pattern. This is the blueprint that is to be followed. After such is heard, this could in turn be passed on by teaching other men. Those men would be able to pass this same thing on also. This would surely insure unity of speech. This would mean that one generation after another could continue to speak the same thing. Culture or the passing of time would not change it.

Such will promote unity of action. Paul knew that this possibility existed for he said, “as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye“ (I Corinthians 16:1). By following the words of the apostle as a pattern for action, you will have unity of action. All in the church at Corinth could do as all in the churches of Galatia. This would be consistent with what Paul had said before, “as I teach everywhere in every church” (I Corinthians 4:17). If all those churches would follow the pattern laid out by Paul’s teaching, you would have unity of action. There would be no division.

A PATTERN PRESERVES IDENTITY

The thing that helped identify the child of God under the Old Testament was the pattern which he followed. He was given certain instructions as to how he was to act. You will find that the Jew was to observe the sabbath as a holy day (Exodus 20:8). This would serve to set him apart from the inhabitants of the land into which they came. They would be identified by such practices as they followed the Word of the Lord. His Word would be the pattern for their lives.

This is also true of the child of God today. He is what he is because he follows a certain form or pattern of teaching. In fact, Paul said of those at Rome, “but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you“ (Romans 6:17). This would be equal to saying they  had obeyed the gospel. Each one of those in the church at Rome would be what he or she was because they had all followed the same pattern in obedience. They had all come from the same form or mold and thus would all be the same. They would all be one in Christ. There would be no difference in their religious identity. To change their identity, you would have to change the pattern they follow. As long as men follow the same pattern, then they will all be the same in kind.

As you see the gospel move throughout the Roman world, you see men and women following the same instructions. They are all Christians. You do not have one kind of Christian in Jerusalem and another kind in Antioch. They all came from the same mold or pattern. The same seed that was planted in Jerusalem was also planted in Antioch. The seed brings forth after its kind (Genesis 1:12). Such will surely preserve identity. That is surely the case with the gospel which is the pattern for all to follow in matters which pertain to the soul.

J Winfred Clark

REACTIONS TO THE WORD

When one reads the book of Matthew, he will find a record of various reactions to the Word of God. Jesus gave a great deal of time and attention to this very serious matter. You will find that our Lord considered this matter to be of paramount importance. He had some things to say on one occasion that will serve to introduce us to our study for this time.

There was an occasion when some of the scribes and Pharisees would confront him about the conduct of His disciples. They wanted to know why His disciples transgress the tradition of the elders. This they said was being done when they did not wash their hands when they ate (Matthew 15:1-2). Jesus responded with a question. “Why do ye transgress the commandment of God by your tradition” (Matthew 15:3)?

Jesus then proceeded to tell them which commandment he had in mind. It was the commandment having to do with honoring father and mother (Matthew 15:4). But how were they reacting to this word?

SOME WOULD SEEK TO MAKE IT OF NONE EFFECT?

What was being said by these scribes and Pharisees would have the result of saying this commandment is not in effect. Their tradition would say to a father or mother, “It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me: and honor not his father or his mother, he shall be free” (Matthew 15:5-6). In this case, a human tradition would set aside the commandment of the Lord. Thus, what was in effect is, to them, without effect or power. They would deprive the commandment of its authority or power. They will use in its stead the doctrines and commandments of men. I am persuaded that this same kind of thing occurs in our day. This can be seen when you discuss the subject of baptism with some of our religious neighbors.

Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). This is a plain statement of our Lord. There can be no doubt about the place of baptism in the plan of man’s redemption. But how many times have we seen people who will take this plain passage and seek to break the force of it by saying, “Man is saved by faith alone”? In so doing they seek to make of none effect the Word of God. That is, they seek to say by this and other statements that baptism is not necessary, that it is of none effect. But what would the difference be between this sort of statement concerning baptism and the one the scribes and Pharisees made concerning the responsibility to honor father and mother? I fail to see any at all. They would be exactly the same in principle. These would seek to make the Word of God of none effect concerning baptism.

SOME PRACTICE THAT WHICH IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT

One can read some of the epistles of Paul and find a number of people who sought to continue to observe the law of Moses after it had been taken out of the way. Listen to an argument he used to the Hebrew Christians, some of whom were turning back to the law. You will see him trying to help some of his brethren at Colossae. There were some men who were trying to beguile them (Colossians 2:4). Some would take them captive by vain deceit (Colossians 2:8). Some would seek to bind upon them the law concerning meats and drink, holy days, new moons and sabbath days (Colossians 2:16). Paul would have them to know that such a law was not now in effect. Notice what he had to say about what Jesus did concerning the law in His death upon the cross: “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 2:14).

Again, you will find him making the same observation, in a different way, in the Galatian letter. Here he will tell them not to go back to the law. Notice that he will have to say: “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage” (Galatians 5:1). There can be no question that he is speaking of the law (Galatians 5:2-4). Here he shows that if one goes back to the practice of the law concerning circumcision, Christ will profit him nothing, he makes himself a debtor to do the whole law and he would fall from grace. So for them to seek to practice that which was no longer in effect would place their souls in danger.

But would this not be the same with those of our day who would return to the law for a day to observe, such as the sabbath, or the use of the mechanical instrument? If not, what would be the difference? The principle is the same. Would this not be an attempt to practice that which is not in effect?

You would have the same thing as those who would follow John’s baptism after the baptism of the great commission became effective. Take the case of those twelve disciples at Ephesus. We know that Paul would encourage them to be baptized properly according to the directions of the great commission (Acts 19:1-6).

SOME PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT WHICH IS IN EFFECT 

We have this being played out before our eyes this very day. There is absolutely no question about the biblical injunctions against homosexuality and lesbianism. Notice the language of Paul in his letter to the church at Rome. Here he said, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature” (Romans 1:26). Did you notice the word change? Does this not point up the fact that such a practice is a perversion of that which is right? But this statement will tell you how far they have gone. When he said, “even their women,” he means they are now doing the same kinds of things the men were doing. But there is no endorsement found in Paul’s writing. You will find him commending some who had ceased such practices (I Corinthians 6:9-11). If you will read verse 11, you will find that he classes these kinds of people as those who will not enter the kingdom of God. But men pay no attention to the inspired attitudes toward such sinfulness.

So, when we observe the reactions to the Word of God, we find men seeking to make it of none effect, some practicing that which is no longer in effect, and some ignoring that which is still in effect.

Winfred Clark

Does Silence Give Sanction?

It is a matter of verbal conjecture on the part of many that God’s silence on a subject of human preference makes such allowable. Such is advocated by those who presume to use mechanical instruments in New Testament worship. It is assumed that since there is no declared prohibition against it such is then allowed. It seems the battles of the past fought in this same arena must again occur. The same questions need to be asked again. The same simple lessons must be learned again.

WASN’T GOD SILENT ABOUT ALL OTHER WOOD EXCEPT GOPHER IN BUILDING THE ARK?

Such seems to be a foolish question to those who read Genesis 6:14. In fact, as you read this verse, and others related to the ark, you would affirm the silence of God on all other kinds of wood to be used in the ark. This would be a good place to show His silence.

Would you at the same time argue that His silence would give sanction to the use of any other kind of wood? Would you even care to assume that His silence gave sanction to the use of such? In fact, wouldn’t you oppose the use of any other kind of wood? If you did, on what basis would you oppose it?

Would you argue that His silence does not sanction it and that you would have to have His Word to authorize the use of any other kinds of wood? Shouldn’t it follow then that the silence of the New Testament does not authorize the use of mechanical instruments in New Testament worship?

WASN’T GOD SILENT ABOUT THE KIND OFFIRE USED BY NADAB AND ABIHU?

“And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon and offered strange fire before the Lord which he commanded them not” (Leviticus 10:1).

What did they do? They did something God had not commanded. They used a kind of fire about which God was silent. Did His silence give sanction to what they did? If such were sanctioned, why were they punished for such?

Would God by His silence sanction a practice, and then punish those for doing what He sanctioned? You and I know better. We wouldn’t dare argue that His silence gave sanction to what they did, but we do have to admit that God was indeed silent about the kind of fire they did use.

WASN’T GOD SILENT ABOUT THE NEED OF GENTILES TO BE CIRCUMCISED TO BE SAVED UNDER THE GOSPEL?

Do you remember those who went from Jerusalem to Antioch saying such was the case (Acts 15:1-2)? Do you recall that the apostles and elders met in Jerusalem about this question? Do you remember that they sent an epistle back to Antioch and other places saying, “We gave no such commandment” (Acts 15:24)?

They were silent concerning the necessity for Gentiles to be circumcised. To add such to God’s requirement for salvation was equal to the invasion of God’s silence. This would constitute an addition and perversion. For men to add the mechanical instrument to New Testament worship is no less an invasion of God’s silence.

WASN’T GOD SILENT ABOUT WASHING HANDS BEFORE EATING?

Some would add such and seek to have the Lord endorse it, bid to no avail (Matthew 15:1-9). Jesus showed such to be nothing more than a human tradition. It has its origin with men and not with God. God was silent concerning such, and Jesus did not accept that as authorization to bind such on His disciples.

WASN’T GOD SILENT CONCERNING ONE SERVING AS A PRIEST UNDER THE LAW FROM THE TRIBE OF JUDAH?

One has but to read the following, “For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribeMoses spake nothing concerning priesthood” (Hebrews 7:13-14). The Hebrews writer used this as an argument to show that Jesus was of a higher order of priest.

Wouldn’t you think the overall priesthood would be better by having one perfect priest such as Jesus? Surely we would, but such wouldn’t authorize invading God’s silence and making Jesus a priest from the wrong tribe. The unanswerable argument is that since nothing was said concerning one from the tribe of Judah serving as priest, then one from Judah was not authorized to serve as a priest. Then what would it take for one to be authorized? Certainly not silence, but rather a statement to that effect.

What would it take for the authorization of the mechanical instrument in New Testament worship? Wouldn’t it take a supporting statement like we have in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 for singing? You certainly don’t have any authorization based on silence. If so, there is absolutely no limit to the additions one can make. No, silence doesn’t give sanction and God doesn’t need to be treated as an idol that cannot speak. He has told us how to worship and in doing this we have His sanction based on His Word.

J. Winfred Clark
1923-1997