# Who can give a benediction?



## Bondman

Who can give a benediction in the PCA? Can a choir? Can a layman? I am speaking here of a benediction in the context of a worship service, not any other notion of the word. Is it supposed to be exclusively administered by the teaching elder?


----------



## Croghanite

Apparently "only those who are ordained can give the salutation, benediction and administer the Sacraments." 
see http://puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=16024 

This thread speaks of the congregational response during and after recieving the benediction. http://puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=12789


----------



## Archlute

I was unable to find anything in our BCO that would specifically answer your question, on the other hand, I have never seen anyone other than the minister (TE) give the benediction.


----------



## Croghanite

I could not find anything in the PCA BCO either. But it seems to be clear in Westminster directory of public worship. See the last statement.

*Westminster Directory of Public Worship*
*Of Prayer after Sermon.*

The sermon being ended, the minister is "To give thanks for the great love of God, in sending his Son Jesus Christ unto us; for the communication of his Holy Spirit; for the light and liberty of the glorious gospel, and the rich and heavenly blessings revealed therein; as, namely, election, vocation, adoption, justification, sanctification, and hope of glory; for the admirable goodness of God in freeing the land from anti-christian darkness and tyranny, and for all other national deliverances; for the reformation of religion; for the covenant; and for many temporal blessings.

"To pray for the continuance of the gospel, and all ordinances thereof, in their purity, power, and liberty: to turn the chief and most useful heads of the sermon into some few petitions; and to pray that it may abide in the heart, and bring forth fruit.

"To pray for preparation for death and judgment, and a watching for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: to entreat of God the forgiveness of the iniquities of our holy things, and the acceptation of our spiritual sacrifice, through the merit and mediation of our great High Priest and Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ."

And because the prayer which Christ taught his disciples is not only a pattern of prayer, but itself a most comprehensive prayer, we recommend it also to be used in the prayers of the church.

And whereas, at the administration of the sacraments, the holding publick fasts and days of thanksgiving, and other special occasions, which may afford matter of special petitions and thanksgivings, it is requisite to express somewhat in our publick prayers, (as at this time it is our duty to pray for a blessing upon the Assembly of Divines, the armies by sea and land, for the defence of the King, Parliament, and Kingdom,) every minister is herein to apply himself in his prayer, before or after sermon, to those occasions: but, for the manner, he is left to his liberty, as God shall direct and enable him in piety and wisdom to discharge his duty.

The prayer ended, let a psalm be sung, if with conveniency it may be done. *After which (unless some other ordinance of Christ, that concerneth the congregation at that time, be to follow) let the minister dismiss the congregation with a solemn blessing. *


----------



## SRoper

This past Lord's Day our pastor had the children's choir "help" give the benediction by having them raise their hands as he gave it.


----------



## Croghanite

My session has allowed the choir to sing the benediction.
They also allow elders to give the benediction.

I wonder if the elder doing it would be permissible or must the man be an ordained minister?


----------



## bookslover

Bondman said:


> Who can give a benediction in the PCA? Can a choir? Can a layman? I am speaking here of a benediction in the context of a worship service, not any other notion of the word. Is it supposed to be exclusively administered by the teaching elder?



What should be the case is: any ordained elder (RE or TE) should be allowed to give the benediction. Unfortunately, in the 3-office-view-heavy OPC, any RE who tried it would probably be taken out back and shot!


----------



## jaybird0827

LAYMAN JOE said:


> My session has allowed the choir to sing the benediction.
> They also allow elders to give the benediction.
> 
> I wonder if the elder doing it would be permissible or must the man be an ordained minister?


 


> The prayer ended, let a psalm be sung, if with conveniency it may be done. *After which (unless some other ordinance of Christ, that concerneth the congregation at that time, be to follow) let the minister dismiss the congregation with a solemn blessing*.


 
The benediction is apostolic, and the divines knew that. Ministers hold the teaching office and are stewards of the mysteries of God. The minister should give the benediction. (Numbers 6:22-27, II Corinthians 13:14, Romans 15:33, Philippians 4:23)


----------



## R. Scott Clark

The question is "who can preach"?

A benediction is a formal, official, declaration of God's Word. As a three-office man I should think that belongs to the minister.

Certainly unordained persons have no business making authoritative declarations on behalf of Christ. 

It gets back to the concept of _office_. There are special offices and the general office of believer. The offices have distinct vocations.

rsc


----------



## NaphtaliPress

R. Scott Clark said:


> The question is "who can preach"?
> 
> A benediction is a formal, official, declaration of God's Word. As a three-office man I should think that belongs to the minister.
> 
> Certainly unordained persons have no business making authoritative declarations on behalf of Christ.
> 
> It gets back to the concept of _office_. There are special offices and the general office of believer. The offices have distinct vocations.
> 
> rsc


----------



## bradofshaw

I'm really curious about this. Most of the time a benediction is quoted straight out of scripture. Is the general consensus that these are biblically proscribed blessings? In other words, are these words meant specifically to be used in corporate worship alone? If so, how about their use outside of corporate worship. Also, what about a "benediction" which is either modified or made up by the one giving the benediction, say by an ordained minister. RPW issue? 

For instance, at Belhaven College, a mostly evanjellyfish institution, a "benediction" is recited by the students after chapel (which is hardly a biblical worship service). However, the verse they recite as their "benediction" is "No eye has seen, no ear has heard what God has prepared for those who love him." This doesn't seem to fit the definition of a benediction, but is it wrong to practice this and call it a benediction (I can't see anything wrong with dismissing an assembly with a recital of scripture otherwise). Or what if layman joe wants to say goodnight to his children by saying "may the Lord bless you and keep you, may the Lord make his face to shine upon you..." Is that misappropriating the words?

I realize I've conjoined several questions here, but I'm interested in reading a response. It's an issue I've never seen discussed or read anything about.


----------



## Irishcat922

R. Scott Clark said:


> The question is "who can preach"?
> 
> A benediction is a formal, official, declaration of God's Word. As a three-office man I should think that belongs to the minister.
> 
> Certainly unordained persons have no business making authoritative declarations on behalf of Christ.
> 
> It gets back to the concept of _office_. There are special offices and the general office of believer. The offices have distinct vocations.
> 
> rsc


----------



## bookslover

R. Scott Clark said:


> Certainly unordained persons have no business making authoritative declarations on behalf of Christ.



Oh, pshaw. Unordained persons make authoritative declarations on behalf of Christ all the time - as when witnessing to unbelievers, for example.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

So, there's no distinction between the private speech of Christians and public, authoritative declarations in a stated service?

rsc



bookslover said:


> Oh, pshaw. Unordained persons make authoritative declarations on behalf of Christ all the time - as when witnessing to unbelievers, for example.


----------



## Archlute

I would say, if they are both speaking the truth of Scripture by the enabling of the Holy Spirit, then no, there is no substantive difference. The Gospel given out to a man with whom you're speaking in the airport lounge, and the Gospel given to the congregation in a stated service are both binding and both authoritative, because the authority is derived from the message of Scripture itself, and the power to speak it effectively is given by the same Spirit.

What would make one more authoritative than the other? Do we say that it is because a man has been ordained by the church?

According to some reading that I've been doing in J. Owen (vol.9, as sermon on pastoral duties), he states that there are three things which are necessary for the minister to be effective in his work. The first is Christ likeness in character, the second is the need for authority, and the third is the need for zeal in the work. In his second point, regarding authority, he specifically stated that authority is derived "from the unction of the Holy Ghost, _and not from office_." 

He notes this elsewhere in a discourse somewhere in vol. 13, and he gives the example of the scribes and of Christ. The scribes had an officially recognized office within the church of their day, but they had no authority or power in their ministrations, being without the Spirit. Christ, on the other hand, was noted for his power in preaching and teaching, even apart from any office in the church, because it was given him by the Holy Spirit. Owen then deduces that it is the working of the Spirit within a man that calls, gifts, and ordains him to office, and that the church merely recognizes that work and grants him freedom to work in the church (and no, I wouldn't buy into a RH reading of this that would say the Spirit's operations with Christ were exclusive to Him and to that age in RH history, at least I wouldn't with this issue).

William Perkins also recognized that it was the sovereign working of the Holy Spirit that gave authority to the spoken word. In chapter four of his "Calling to the Ministry", Perkins conceded various situations where a minster may not be available to do the necessary work of the ministry, and in these cases stated that "God blesses the labors of private individuals who have knowledge, sometimes in conversion, as well as bringing comfort at the hour of death...in these circumstances a knowledgeable and godly individual becomes a minister either to himself or to someone else."

Now, both of these men recognized that the established ministry takes precedence, but they _did_ both allow that a man who had not been formally recognized by the church could, on certain occasions, act as a bona fide minister. This would indeed mean that the authority and power of the office lay within the blessings of the Spirit, and not within the office itself.

All of the greatest reformed preachers that I can think of held to this view; that it is the Spirit that empowers, and the Word that lends authority. Veering away from that position seems to lead on towards a RC view of office, and tends to feed the pride. If a man rests his authority in his position exclusively, and fails to humble himself regularly before the Lord, seeking the empowering work of the Spirit, it would follow that there is much more work going on in the flesh than otherwise. I have read some essays by men who promote this position, and in my opinion, they lean pretty steeply towards the pole of arrogance. It shouldn't have to lead towards that , but it seems that it tends to do so. 

I think that it elevates the office in an unhealthy manner, and since our ministers don't seem to be known primarily for their humility, it would seem that maintaining an older reformed view of the ministry would be beneficial (as well as more Scriptural in my opinion).


----------



## bookslover

Archlute said:


> I would say, if they are both speaking the truth of Scripture by the enabling of the Holy Spirit, then no, there is no substantive difference. The Gospel given out to a man with whom you're speaking in the airport lounge, and the Gospel given to the congregation in a stated service are both binding and both authoritative, because the authority is derived from the message of Scripture itself, and the power to speak it effectively is given by the same Spirit.
> 
> What would make one more authoritative than the other? Do we say that it is because a man has been ordained by the church?
> 
> According to some reading that I've been doing in J. Owen (vol.9, as sermon on pastoral duties), he states that there are three things which are necessary for the minister to be effective in his work. The first is Christ likeness in character, the second is the need for authority, and the third is the need for zeal in the work. In his second point, regarding authority, he specifically stated that authority is derived "from the unction of the Holy Ghost, _and not from office_."
> 
> He notes this elsewhere in a discourse somewhere in vol. 13, and he gives the example of the scribes and of Christ. The scribes had an officially recognized office within the church of their day, but they had no authority or power in their ministrations, being without the Spirit. Christ, on the other hand, was noted for his power in preaching and teaching, even apart from any office in the church, because it was given him by the Holy Spirit. Owen then deduces that it is the working of the Spirit within a man that calls, gifts, and ordains him to office, and that the church merely recognizes that work and grants him freedom to work in the church (and no, I wouldn't buy into a RH reading of this that would say the Spirit's operations with Christ were exclusive to Him and to that age in RH history, at least I wouldn't with this issue).
> 
> William Perkins also recognized that it was the sovereign working of the Holy Spirit that gave authority to the spoken work. In chapter four of his "Calling to the Ministry", Perkins conceded various situations where a minster may not be available to do the necessary work of the ministry, and in these cases stated that "God blesses the labors of private individuals who have knowledge, sometimes in conversion, as well as bringing comfort at the hour of death...in these circumstances a knowledgeable and godly individual becomes a minister either to himself or to someone else."
> 
> Now, both of these men recognized that the established ministry takes precedent, but they _did_ both allow that a man who had not been formally recognized by the church could, on certain occasions, act as a bona fide minister. This would indeed mean that the authority and power of the office lay within the blessings of the Spirit, and not within the office itself.
> 
> All of the greatest reformed preachers that I can think of held to this view; that it is the Spirit that empowers, and the Word that lends authority. Veering away from that position seems to lead on towards a RC view of office, and tends to feed the pride. If a man rests his authority in his position exclusively, and fails to humble himself regularly before the Lord, seeking the empowering work of the Spirit, it would follow that there is much more work going on in the flesh than otherwise. I have read some essays by men who promote this position, and in my opinion, they lean pretty steeply towards the pole of arrogance. It shouldn't have to lead towards that , but it seems that it tends to do so.
> 
> I think that it elevates the office in an unhealthy manner, and since our ministers don't seem to be known primarily for thier humility, it would seem that maintaining an older reformed view of the ministry would be beneficial (as well as more Scriptural in my opinion).



What he said.

A couple of other thoughts: (1) some of this, I think, can be related to the "priesthood of all believers" idea. All Christians, when speaking on spiritual things (witnessing, etc.) speak authoritatively, so long as they stick to what the Scriptures teach.

(2) A strong 3-office view of the offices can result in some of the attitude that Archlute is speaking of. One minister of my acquaintance was overhead to say to the effect that he would do away with Ruling Elders entirely, if he could.

We need to get back to the idea that Scripture recognizes only two offices - elder and deacon. Some elders are full-time ministers, but that doesn't make their office any greater than that of Ruling Elders.

Good session meeting: all the elders work together to arrive at their decisions.
Bad session meeting: the Ruling Elders rubber stamp whatever decisions the Teaching Elder has made.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

So we'll ordain the entire congregation to pastoral ministry and be done with it?

rsc


----------



## fredtgreco

R. Scott Clark said:


> So we'll ordain the entire congregation to pastoral ministry and be done with it?
> 
> rsc




No, but we might recognize that ruling elders _are_ ordained and that they have a hand in the gospel ministry.


----------



## jaybird0827

There is equal parity among the elders but there are differences in gifts and in function. All are ordained and all are rulers, but the man who is ordained to and holds the teaching office specializes in the ministry of the word and of the means of grace. It is the minister's place to pronounce an apostolic benediction, just as it is his place to preach the word and administer the sacraments.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

I don't like the two office view, but I accept it as a part of the Presbyterian world in which I live and work. I wouldn't quibble about ordained [ruling] elders administering the word, because they are ordained to special office and part of that office does require them to be "apt to teach." 

What I'm querying is how far this democratizing principle goes? It was argued previously that anything said by any Christian (e.g., on the street) carries as much official authority as anything said by a minister in a pulpit. This strikes me as implausible and confusing.

I don't think anything I'm saying or implying denies the general office of believer or the priesthood of all believers does it?

rsc



fredtgreco said:


> No, but we might recognize that ruling elders _are_ ordained and that they have a hand in the gospel ministry.


----------



## bookslover

jaybird0827 said:


> There is equal parity among the elders but there are differences in gifts and in function. All are ordained and all are rulers, but the man who is ordained to and holds the teaching office specializes in the ministry of the word and of the means of grace. It is the minister's place to pronounce an apostolic benediction, just as it is his place to preach the word and administer the sacraments.



The Bible says that all elders, without distinction, are to be "able to teach." I also know of a Ruling Elder who pronounces the benediction, and I think he's quite within his rights as an elder to do so.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> One minister of my acquaintance was overhead to say to the effect that he would do away with Ruling Elders entirely, if he could.


This is not a good or fair representation of the three office view. Please see Derke Bergsma's essay in John Armstrong, ed. _The Compromised Church_ for a biblical-theological rationale for the three-office view.

As I understand and practice the three-office view, the minister is, in a sense, _below_ the ruling elders, on a par with the deacons. They are ministers of mercy and the minister is a servant of the word. The URC church order has it that:



> The duties belonging to the office of minister of the Word consist of continuing in prayer and in the ministry of the Word, administering the sacraments. Catechizing the youth, and assisting the elders in the shepherding and discipline of the congregation.


Remember, minister is Latin for _servant_ not master. Anyone with prelatical pretensions is not being faithful to the nature of the ministerial office.



> We need to get back to the idea that Scripture recognizes only two offices - elder and deacon.


Back to where and when?



> Good session meeting: all the elders work together to arrive at their decisions.


Does anyone actually doubt this?

rsc


----------



## Larry Hughes

First question: Just out of curiosity, does the benediction differ from bearing another's sin? That is offering a word of Gospel comfort to a brother struggling under what Luther would call the anfechtung or trial/temptation and similar such battles with the devil. Is the benediction a formal declaration where the later is one brother helping the other brother?

Second question: Is the benediction strictly speaking a Word of forgiveness in Christ's place for Christ's sake? How does this differ from the Gospel itself and reminding each other in the faith?

Third question: Is it truly a benediction if it is qualified?

Ldh


----------



## jaybird0827

Larry Hughes said:


> First question: Just out of curiosity, does the benediction differ from bearing another's sin? That is offering a word of Gospel comfort to a brother struggling under what Luther would call the anfechtung or trial/temptation and similar such battles with the devil. Is the benediction a formal declaration where the later is one brother helping the other brother?
> 
> Second question: Is the benediction strictly speaking a Word of forgiveness in Christ's place for Christ's sake? How does this differ from the Gospel itself and reminding each other in the faith?
> 
> Third question: Is it truly a benediction if it is qualified?
> 
> Ldh


 
I understand that the literal meaning of "benediction" is "good word" and that there might be more than one use of the term. 

OTOH, the current discussion is about the apostolic benedition that is pronounced at the end of a worship service.


----------



## jaybird0827

R. Scott Clark said:


> This is not a good or fair representation of the three office view. Please see Derke Bergsma's essay in John Armstrong, ed. _The Compromised Church_ for a biblical-theological rationale for the three-office view.
> 
> As I understand and practice the three-office view, the minister is, in a sense, _below_ the ruling elders, on a par with the deacons. They are ministers of mercy and the minister is a servant of the word. The URC church order has it that:
> 
> Remember, minister is Latin for _servant_ not master. Anyone with prelatical pretensions is not being faithful to the nature of the ministerial office.
> ...


 
That explains it beautifully. I especially like it because I understand the pulpit as being under the guardianship of the Session. Thank you, Dr. Clark.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Though, I'm not saavy to e-lingo, OTOH???, thanks anyway.

Ldh


----------



## SRoper

Larry Hughes said:


> Though, I'm not saavy to e-lingo, OTOH???, thanks anyway.
> 
> Ldh



"On the other hand."


----------



## MW

Numbers 6:27, "and they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them." The benediction should be given by those who are authorised to perform Trinitarian baptism.


----------

