The Public Reading of Scripture

Paul
The challenge to your objection is that while we find the commands to read and teach are set in the same sentence they possess differing causes or have in view differing reasons and theogical discovery bears this out

[Alex Guggenheim] My understanding is that the public reading in the early church was because people did not have their own copies and they needed, regularly, to hear it read since they did not have immediate access to them. Therefore, the command (1 Timothy 4:13) to read publicly was not as a matter of liturgy or public honoring of the Scriptures purely via them being read, rather it was a practical reason. The public reading enabled believers to have regular and repeated exposure to the Word of God through its reading which allowed them more access and subsequent familiarity and memorization of the Word.

Obviously we do not necessitate this so I do question the practice as a matter of liturgical necessity. It seems to me that it has become an exercise in piety in too many cases rather than for the practical reason given. However, with that said, it is always possible that someone will be present who is not familiar with a text that is read and of course it could edify them or convict them so, that must also be considered.

And I agree if someone is going to read they should have some kind of capacity for public narration.

Second time this has come up recently—someone suggested a similar idea on the http://sharperiron.org/filings/12-10-11/21095] Pros and Cons of Online Giving thread—that perhaps the NT command was no longer applicable today.

Gotta say I’m skeptical. I’d be happier if we would classify “offerings” and “the public reading of scripture” as formal activities of the gathered church. In the free church tradition we would not necessarily mandate how often Scripture reading should occur. And we would not mandate a particular weekly selection from the Gospels, Epistles, or Psalms (as is done in the Common Lectionary). But we sure ought to “give attention” to the idea.

[Our Reformed friends, embracing the Regulative Principle, would regard “offerings” and “the public reading of scripture” as required “elements” of worship, but they wouldn’t necessarily mandate frequency.]

I am confident that most would agree some commands are transcendent and some are not meant to be so but are given out of context. I believe this is the case with reading the Scriptures. The objective (give attention) is for people (believers particularly) to have access to Scripture, not merely reading for the sake of reading or some exercise of Scriptural piety. This objective is now met otherwise with the phenomenon of mass printing.

I do believe the views suggested with respect to the RP are very wooden at best in this matter. BTW, I attend a church that reads, publicly.

JG, during one Lord’s Day during our regular reading of Scripture, I had a father and a little daughter read the passage to the church family. The father read most of the passage, but the daughter jumped in by reading some select verses that I selected.

Todd, I’ve always thought you were a little fuzzy around the edges. It could have just been the beard, but now I see it goes beyond that. ;)

I would guess that the people listened more carefully than they usually do, and appreciated the reading more than they usually do, and it may well have motivated that little girl even more to read her Bible. I’m no pragmatist, but there’s nothing against that in Scripture at all. “Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings” is ok, but out of the mouth of women isn’t? :) (And yes, for the quibblers among us, I know that passage isn’t talking about corporate worship. Joke.)