Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Gentile Conversion in the Great Commission

I just had a thought:

When Jesus sent out the twelve disciples the first time, he specifically told them to go only to Israel, not to the Gentiles, not even to the half-Israelite Samaritans (Matt 10:5-6).

In the Great Commission, he sent those same disciples (minus Judas) to "the whole world" (Mark 16:15), to the "Nations" (i.e, the Gentiles - Matt 28:19).

In that time period, when a Gentile converted to YHWH, the Gentile had to be baptized, circumcised, and had to obey the law of Moses. When Peter started converting Gentiles, starting with Cornelius and family, Peter had the Gentiles baptized (Acts 10:48). The Jews back home insisted that the Gentiles also had to be circumcised and to obey the law of Moses (Acts 15:1,5).

Had the Jews been the ones to give the Great Commission, they would have said, "He that believes and is baptized and is circumcised and obeys the law of Moses shall be saved; he that does not believe shall be condemned."

It's interesting that respecting the conversion of Gentiles, Jesus only required baptism, not baptism and circumcision and Moses-keeping.

Was Jesus' Great Commission statement concerning baptism a new requirement for all believers, or an easing of the requirements for converting Gentiles? Hmmm....

Friday, September 25, 2015

Keep Your Marriage Oath

In the previous Ask of God post, I mentioned how the young Israelite nation made a treaty with a neighboring nation, which treaty-making was forbidden to them by God to do.

However, once the treaty was made, it was made. When the leaders of Israel realized their mistake, they said,
Josh 9:19 “We have sworn to them by YHWH, the God of Israel, and now we may not touch them.20 This we will do to them: let them live, lest wrath be upon us, because of the oath that we swore to them.”

Although the Israelites had erred, rather than reneging on the treaty to try and "fix" their error, which would have compounded the error by the breaking of their oath, they kept to their oath.

I'm reminded of the position many Christians take toward marriage/divorce/remarriage, which claims that when a person realizes s/he has [re]married unscripturally, and has taken an improper oath to be married, that person should divorce the new spouse and remain single. This position contradicts the example set by Israel with their improper oath.

Does Israel's example have bearing on the marriage/divorce/remarriage issue? I'm not smart enough to say, but I do find it to make for an interesting parallel.

Thursday, September 24, 2015

Ask of God

When God was first telling the Israelites that he would lead them into the land of Canaan, he specifically told them to not make treaties with the inhabitants of that land or to allow them to stay in the land:
ESV Ex 23:30 "Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you have increased and possess the land. 31 And I will set your border from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the Euphrates, for I will give the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you shall drive them out before you. 32 You shall make no covenant with them and their gods. 33 They shall not dwell in your land, lest they make you sin against me; for if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you.”
Later, during that process, one group of Canaanites, the Gibeonites, deceived the leaders of the Israelites by coming into the Israelites' camp dressed in worn-out clothing, carrying old, dry, crumbly bread, patched sandals, etc, and claiming to be from a distant country (with whom the Israelites were allowed to make treaties).

The leaders bought into this deception, and made a treaty with the Gibeonites, in violation of God's instructions.

My friend Brad points out the real problem here: verse 14:
So the men took some of their provisions, but did not ask counsel from YHWH. 15 And Joshua made peace with them and made a covenant with them....
Brad summarizes the lesson for us:
Always ask God before you do anything. And then listen.
A wise man, my friend Brad.

Friday, September 18, 2015

Meanings of Names in the Genealogy of Genesis Chapter 5

I just saw an article which intrigued me, so I did my own research on the claims of the article. I googled "meaning of names [$NAME]", where[$NAME} was replaced by each of the names of the patriarchs as listed in the genealogy of Genesis chapter 5, and here are the results I scribbled down:
  • Adam - of the red earth, red, man, earthman
  • Seth - appointed, anointed, compensation
  • Enosh - mortal
  • Kenan - buyer, owner, possession
  • Mahalalel - the blessed God
  • Jared - ruling, commanding, coming down, he who descended
  • Enoch - dedicated, trained
  • Methuselah - death, man of a dart, he shall send his death, when he is dead it shall be sent
  • Lamech - a strong youth, to make low, striker down, wild man
  • Noah - comfort, long-lived, repose, rest
It's interesting that if you take the numbers in this genealogy at face-value (and I do), Methuselah died in the year of the Flood. Could it be that his father, in naming him, prophesied by God's Spirit that when Methuselah died, the Flood would hit the earth? Interesting.

And just as interesting....

Look at the story told by the name-meanings:

An anointed Man, appointed as a compensation, made mortal, the buyer (redeemer) / owner, the blessed God / ruler, descended, dedicated to death, when impaled with darts to his death, then the one who started out strong but was made low, the wild man, will receive comfort, long-life, and rest.

Friday, August 14, 2015

WWJD: Would Jesus Encourage Women to Go to Preacher Training School?

When Mary "sat at the Lord's feet" ("went to seminary class" - as Paul had done under Rabbi ("Teacher") Gamaliel's tutelage - Acts 22:3), her sister Martha complained to Jesus, asking that he tell Mary to get back to the womens' work rather than being involved in a man's role of being a Rabbinical disciple ("student", who's task it was to become like his teacher - Matt 10:25).

Jesus' response was:
Mary has made the right choice, and it will not be taken away from her.
(HCSB Luke 10:42b).
It's also interesting that the first people Jesus assigned to proclaim the good news that Jesus was alive, and to men at that, were women, one of whom, a different Mary, specifically called Jesus "Rabbi" (John 20:16).

Monday, August 10, 2015

Is the "Church of Christ" a Denomination? Yes. And No.

Wes McAdams has an interesting article at Is the “Church of Christ” a Denomination? Wes manifests a lot of wisdom; he's a breath of fresh air in the "Church of Christ" denomination (yes, that's tongue-in-cheek).

There are two things I'd like to point out about this article of his:

1) the definition of "denomination" really comes from the action of denominating, or naming. To insist that all Christians are in a congregation wearing the name "Church of Christ" is to denominate, and is to make that body of believers a denomination.

Thankfully, Wes does not do that. He is careful to note that the label "Church of Christ" is not required on the building or group.

In fact, a more common label in the New Testament is "church of God", or "The Way". There are dozens of labels in the NT for the body of Christ. "Church of Christ" is perfectly acceptable, although I would lower-case the "c" of "Church" to make it clear that this is a description rather than a proper name.

2) As Wes rightly points out, "If you are a Christian, you are already a member of the church of Christ!"

But what some of us fail to realize is that it's possible, at least theoretically, for a Christian to only know the religious church in which he was raised (say, Baptist), but via independent study has come to sufficient knowledge to be scripturally converted into a true Christian. Not knowing enough yet to come out of the "extra" trappings of a denomination, he might very well consider himself a Baptist Christian. Many within the Restoration Movement would not recognize such a person as a member of the church of Christ, but if he truly is a Christian, but merely a Christian in error (who of us isn't in error, at some point or another?), then he is indeed a member of the church of Christ.

When we divide ourselves from such a person, we have divided the true church of Christ, and have made the "Church of Christ" into a denomination.

In other words, the church of Christ is larger (at least theoretically) than the "Church of Christ" "brotherhood", as defined by signs above the door and registrations in brotherhood lists of churches and adherence to brotherhood publications.

So Wes is correct; the church of Christ is not a denomination. But the "Church of Christ brotherhood" is (if it's exclusive, even in principle, of other possible Christians).

As Wes says, we are "Christians only"; but he neglected to quote the rest of that phrase coined by the early Restorationists - "But not the only Christians".

I agree with Wes: Let's "lay down our man-made traditions, titles, and creeds and be Christians only!" But let's not make the mistake of claiming that we're the only Christians.

Two final points:

1 - in Acts 19, Paul found "some disciples" who were ignorant on some important points concerning conversion. They had not even been properly baptized! But the scriptures testify that they were indeed, "disciples" (v. 1).

2 - God testified to Cornelius and crew that he had cleansed (past tense) their hearts by faith when he gave them the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:8-9). This occurred *before* they were baptized - Acts 10:44-48.

Neither of these two final points is intended to negate the command to be baptized, at which it becomes "official" that we are a Christian, but it does highlight that baptism does not save because of the action of bathing, but rather that baptism is the "loyalty-pledge" generated by a freshly-cleansed conscience (1 Pet 3:21), just as in the case with Cornelius.

God's concerned with the inside of the cup, not the outside.

We rebel against the idea that baptism is a seal, but I encourage you to consider 2 Cor 1:22 (when are we sealed? when we're given the Holy Spirit; when are we given the HS?) and Eph 1:13 and Eph 4:30 and Rom 4:11 + Col 2:11-12 (circumcision is a seal of having already attained righteousness by faith; baptism is the "Christian circumcision"; you do the math).

We have no business claiming to be saved or claiming to be a Christian prior to baptism, because we can't see the heart, and should go by the "letter of the law" (as well as we can, without relying on our success in the matter but rather on Christ's right-ness given to us by faith); but God can see the heart, and he goes by the spirit of the law, and at least in the case of Acts 19, he considered improperly-baptized believers to be "disciples".

We must be wary of excluding those whom God may very well have included.

Sunday, August 09, 2015

Cain's and Abel's Offerings

What we know about God's response to the offerings of Cain and Abel is that
YHWH had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. -- Gen 4:4-5
By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. -- Heb 11:4
Hebrews tells us that it wasn't the offering that was acceptable or not, but the person, and that Abel made his offering by faith, and that the acceptance of the offering was to show that the person was acceptable. The converse of that is that the non-acceptance of an offering shows that the person is not acceptable.

We see from this point on that Cain gets angry, kills his brother, has an attitude with God, whines about his punishment, and raises another kid down the line with more problems than he himself had.

The problem wasn't Cain's offering; the problem was Cain.

Friday, July 24, 2015

"Programs" in the Church

Someone in one of my church lists complained about "programs" in the church.

Here was my response:
I don't know....

I see the daily distribution to the widows in Acts 6, handed off to a specially-appointed "committee" of "Servants" ("Deacons"), as perhaps being "a program".

Likewise, the year-long fund-raising effort which Paul was asked to undertake (Gal 2:10; 1 Cor 16:1ff; 2 Cor 8) might also be seen as "a program".

When Jesus sent out the 70, perhaps that was "a program"?

But I certainly understand, and agree with, you about the neglect of individual responsibility within the church; we think we've fulfilled our job if we go to church three times a week, as you say. Bah!

I believe a primary function of the eldership is to train each member how to find their own personal strengths and to use them; as Paul wrote, elders (and others) were given by God "to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ" (Eph 4:11-12). (I think a major function of the church should be to push kids to study hard (and pay for their education in some cases) and to become medical researchers to cure blindness and other diseases, and to become lawyers to help free those wrongly imprisoned, to become Godly politicians to set at liberty those who are oppressed by governmental overbearance, and to become preachers/writers/film-makers who focus on proclaiming the year of the Lord's favor - compare Luke 4:16-21).

But even that is, in essence, "a program".

Thought Experiment concerning Praise Teams

Imagine you're in a little country church building, that has an auditorium with four pew sections, two up front and two in back. Imagine the elders asked the people to sit in the sections according to their natural singing range - Soprano, Alto, Tenor, or Bass.

Then, in order to offer to God the best singing the congregation could muster, each section has a male song-leader, one for each of the four parts; a Bass leader for the Basses, and so on.

And then they sing some awesome song like "Our God, He is Alive ("There is a God"). And it sounds really good, because each part has a leader that draws out their best, and it ties in really well with the other parts.

Would that be unscriptural?

What if each of the leaders was given a microphone?

Would that be unscriptural?

What if the Soprano and Alto sections were composed only of women, and their respective leaders were women?

Would that be unscriptural?

What if instead of the four parts sitting in segregated sections, everybody just sat with their families or friends or wherever they wanted to, and instead of having the four song leaders at each section, they were all moved to the front of the seating area where they could be seen by all?

Would that be unscriptural?

What if instead of four leaders, they double the number to eight, for the extra-hard songs that have more than four-part harmony, or to compensate for some other issue?

Would that be unscriptural?

Just some thoughts....

I Don't Like Praise Teams

On one of my church lists recently, someone wrote:
I do not like praise teams. I do not think they are scriptural.
 My response was as follows:
I totally understand you not liking praise teams; I don't much care for them either, but for practical reasons, such as their volume overpowering the congregational singing. It's also just plain uncomfortable to see a group leading singing if you've never been exposed to it, especially if that group contains women, and you're strongly convinced they shouldn't be "leading" in a mixed assembly.

Totally understandable why someone wouldn't like them.

But as to being unscriptural? If you were a first century christian, and suddenly heard a 21st century church singing four-part harmony instead of the traditional "scriptural" chanting with which you grew up, you'd probably think that was unscriptural.

You might even think that having a song-leader standing before the congregation, waving his arms to the beat, was unscriptural.

Sometimes what we deem as "unscriptural" is really nothing more than "unfamiliar". Not always; but sometimes.

Just something to consider.

Sing with the Spirit, Sing with the Understanding

Often at church, the congregation is encouraged to "sing with the spirit and with the understanding".

I believe most of those who use this phrase fail to understand the context of that phrase. Below is my own paraphrase of 1 Cor 14:13-19 which might make the meaning more clear. I encourage you to get your favorite version of the Bible and read this passage for yourself and see if my paraphrase hits the mark or not.
Therefore, one who speaks with the spirit, that is, in a tongue, should pray that he may interpret.

In other words, if I pray in the spirit, I will also pray with the understanding. If I only pray in the spirit without praying with the understanding, then my spirit does just fine, but my mind is left empty. That's why we need an interpreter.

Not only praying, but singing; if I sing with the spirit, where no one, not even myself, understands what I'm singing, I need to pray to interpret so that I can also sing with the understanding. Otherwise, if you give thanks just with the non-understandable spirit, how can another person understand your giving of thanks? If he says "Amen" to your thanksgiving, he doesn't even know to what he's agreeing. And you may be giving thanks just fine as far as God is concerned, but the other person gets nothing out of it.

I'm thankful that I speak in tongues more than all of you. Still, in the assembly, I'd rather speak 5 words that are understandable to everyone than 10,000 that do no good to anyone except perhaps myself and God.

Tuesday, June 09, 2015

Worshipers or Citizens?

For the past few days, a question has been trying to gel in my head.

Imagine there are two Earths orbiting the sun, both populated with humans.

On one Earth, the humans are very God-oriented, going to church three times a day, every day, worshiping, praying constantly, singing God's praises as they go about their day, talking up Jesus to their neighbors and co-workers and family. But while some humans are making a million dollars a year and living very comfortably, other humans, making $2/day, are starving in third-world countries, and others making $7/hour in America are unable to afford medical care and are thus weak and suffering and dying, and others can't keep their electricity on because the bill is more than their paycheck.

On the other Earth, the humans don't think about God all that much, only once a week when they get together for a period of worship. But no one on earth is naked or hungry, or struggling to make ends meet, or missing out on the best medical care in the cosmos (this side of heaven), because everyone is completely dedicated to making sure that others are not suffering, and the ones making a million dollars a year are living as if they make 50 thousand, and giving the rest to the poor so that even the poorest of the poor can live as if they're making 50 thousand, even if they're only making $2/day with no benefits.

With which planet do you suppose God would be most pleased? Which planet do you suppose best represents God's Kingdom?
ESV Micah 6:6 “With what shall I come before the Lord,
    and bow myself before God on high?
Shall I come before him with burnt offerings,
    with calves a year old?
7 Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams,
    with ten thousands of rivers of oil?
Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression,
    the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?”
8 He has told you, O man, what is good;
    and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
    and to walk humbly with your God?

ESV Isa 58:5 Is such the fast that I choose,
    a day for a person to humble himself?
Is it to bow down his head like a reed,
    and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him?
Will you call this a fast,
    and a day acceptable to the Lord?
6 “Is not this the fast that I choose:
    to loose the bonds of wickedness,
    to undo the straps of the yoke,
to let the oppressed go free,
    and to break every yoke?
7 Is it not to share your bread with the hungry
    and bring the homeless poor into your house;
when you see the naked, to cover him,
    and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?

Saturday, June 06, 2015

1 Cor 14:34-35

Many Christians don't realize that there's a textual discrepancy with 1 Cor 14:34-35; although all known ancient manuscripts contain these verses, the Western manuscripts have them after verse 40, whereas the rest of the manuscripts have them where we find them in our Bibles.

The explanation offered by some scholars, which most resonates with me, is that these verses were a marginal addition, not original to the original writing by Paul. But the fact that they are included in all manuscripts indicates that they were added very, very early, and I believe, likely by Paul himself. If you've ever written a hand-written letter, and finished it, and then realized you needed to add one more little thing, you understand that a letter writer might add that last little thing in the margin next to the topic where it belongs. The scribe who made the parent copy of the Western manuscripts may not have been able to tell where Paul intended the text to be inserted, so merely added it to the end of the section, after verse 40.

In addition to this theory, there is another possibility about this text which I would urge you to consider. Much of 1 Cor was written in answer to issues about which the Corinthians had written to him (1 Cor 7:1).
As he deals with these issues, one by one, he often quotes something the Corinthians have said, and then responds to that quote, such as:

- "It's good to not have sex", but to avoid temptation, get married and have sex (1 Cor 7:1ff), or

- "We have knowledge", but knowledge puffs up whereas love builds up (1 Cor 8:1), or

- "All things are lawful", but not everything is beneficial (1 Cor 10:23).

In this marginal addition of 1 Cor 14:34-35, perhaps Paul is remembering, after finishing his letter, one more thing he needed to address. So he quotes what some factions in Corinth (1 Cor 1:10) are saying, that "Women should be silent, just as the law says."

It seems odd that Paul would be the one saying this; after all, he's already approved of women praying and prophesying in the assembly back in chapter 11. He also quotes the Old Testament when he makes a point from the law, but there is no quotation provided here. Furthermore, there IS NO Old Testament law that says women are to be silent. Why would Paul lie about what the law says?

This view makes sense of the text. Paul has just written three entire chapters about how people who are gifted by God should use that gift to build up the community, and that even if that gift comes in the form of something as impractical as speaking in a tongue, it should not be forbidden from being exercised for the good of the community (1 Cor 14:39). His whole point is that God gives EVERYONE a gift to be used for the building up of the church (1 Cor 12:7). Now he has a faction in the Corinthian church telling women that they should squelch the gift that God has given them? And what is Paul's response? He says...

"What?! Has the word of God come to you [men] only?! Are you the only ones it has reached?" (I believe the bracketed "men" is justified, as the gender within the Greek shifts to a masculine form, even though the previous prohibition was directed at the feminine group.)

If this view is correct, we've entirely misunderstood 180 degrees what this text has said, for over 2000 years.

So I ask a question: If all you know of Jesus and his church came from the life accounts of Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), would you conclude Jesus to be in favor of hushing women from using his gifts to spread his word? In other words, what would Jesus do? Would he tell women to sit down and shut up, or would he encourage them to use their God-given gifts to build up his community of believers? Then compare your conclusion on that matter with the possibility that Paul wasn't telling women to shut up, but was scolding those who were.

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

The Expression of the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God's love. The greatest spiritual gift is love, not tongues, prophecy, faith, hope, but love. When you truly receive the Spirit of God, you will receive the spirit of agape love. This is how we know who belongs to God, this is our identity, the love we have one for another.

We are 2,000 years removed from the book of Acts, to say modern apostolics are the same is ludicrous. We can't imagine life 100 years ago, none the less 2,000 years ago. I went to CLC, I have deep roots in Pentecostalism, and can tell you emotionalism is not a move of God. A move of God is a move of love. When you can love others unconditionally outside of your own tribe and receive them without condition as Christ did, then you truly have the Holy Spirit living within.

-- Steven Cantu

I am not one to restrict God from giving "miraculous" gifts in the modern day (despite my upbringing which insists those disappeared once the "perfect" arrived).

But I'm also well aware that there's typically a lot of emotion involved in assemblies wherein such activities take place, and I'm willing to concede that much of the action therein may be attributed to emotionalism. I'm not saying it's all emotionalism; I'm saying emotionalism can explain much of what I see, without saying it does explain much of what I see.

Having said that, Cantu makes a great point above in his quote, and I thought it was worth sharing.

Saturday, February 28, 2015

The Task of the Church

I saw a family the other day whose kids were complaining about living in a dump as they swam in their beautiful backyard pool in their $80 swimsuits outside their 3500 sq. ft home for 4, and thought how many people are just squeaking by on minimum wage with 2 kids and a 23-year old car shared by both mom and dad to get the kids to school and them to work every day, with the battery dying leaving mom to rely on jumpstarts from strangers to get home from every third trip to the grocery store where she had just enough to buy a loaf of bread, pack of baloney, and half a gallon of milk for the week.

There should be no poverty in our world. God has put riches enough in our world to provide all of us with not just our needs, but also our joys. But Christians have focused on saving souls instead of fulfilling:
  • Jesus' first sermon (Luke 4:14-19), which explained his mission as giving good news to the poor, and proclaiming freedom to captives, and giving sight to the blind, and freeing the oppressed, and proclaiming the year of the Lord's favor;
  • or his last (Matt 25:31-46), which was about feeding the hungry, providing drink to the thirsty, taking in the stranger, clothing the naked, taking care of the sick and the prisoner;
  • or that of John, who when asked what should be done to demonstrate repentance, did not tell his listeners to study their Bibles more or bring visitors to church or convert sinners, but told them to share their stuff, to not overcharge for their services, and to be content with what they had;
  • or that of Paul who stressed that the fulfillment of the law of Christ was to bear one another's burdens (Gal 6:2);
  • or that of Paul in another sermon wherein he stressed that he didn't mean that one group should fare well while another suffers, but that the well-to-do group should bring the suffering group up to a level of financial equality with them (2 Cor 8:13-15).
There also should be no sickness in our world. Another part of Jesus' first sermon was to heal the blind. I believe God has given us the technological ability to heal all sorts of diseases; we just haven't yet discovered that ability in a lot of cases, and in those cases for which we do have answers, we don't have the fair distribution to get the cures out to everyone who needs them. The church has a mandate, I believe, for making sure its young people are educated and driven to find and deliver medical healing to the world.

There also should be no oppression in our world. There should be no slavery, or political oppression, or subjugation of one person by another, such as in the case of rape or robbery or marital abuse or job abuse. Another part of Jesus' first sermon was to bring liberty to the captive and to the oppressed.

When the church has eradicated poverty and sickness and oppression on this planet, and when it has converted the mindsets of the world to love God and neighbor, then will be fulfilled the prayer of Jesus : "Your rulership come; your will be done, on earth, just like it is in heaven." But we've given up on this earth, focusing on the truth that this world is fading away, doomed for destruction. Yes, it is. But we're to be the salt, the preservative of the world, and we're to spread the rulership, the will of God, to this earth, now, while we're here. We're not supposed to abandon the world to destruction, or worse, hasten the coming of the destruction. We're supposed to be salt, and light, and to do good works - "let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven" (Matt 5:16).

Spreading "the gospel" is indeed something we are to be doing. But we're also supposed to be eradicating poverty and sickness and oppression. Until we've done that, we've failed at our task.

Originally published at:

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Obedience != Perfection

Think about your own children. Do they obey every rule you lay down, perfectly, every time?


Do you then consider them disobedient because of their failures?


Obedience isn't about obeying the rules perfectly; it's about the attitude. An obedient child is one who tries to obey, not one who necessarily is always successful in his attempts. Nor is he "disobedient" if he disobeys on occasion, as long as his overall attitude is one of obedience.

Yet we think God holds us to a less-graceful standard?

Originally published at:

Monday, February 09, 2015

Wives, Submit!

HCSB Eph 5:18And ... be filled by the Spirit: ... 21 submitting to one another in the fear of Christ. 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord....
In my environment, the typical take-away message from this passage is that women are to be submissive to men, or at least, wives to their husbands.

And indeed, that's what the black-and-white of the text says.

But I would like to perhaps add some coloring to this passage, which we don't often consider.

To whom was this passage written?

To the Ephesians.

And for what were the Ephesians known?
HCSB Act 19:35However, when the city clerk had calmed the crowd down, he said, "Men of Ephesus! What man is there who doesn't know that the city of the Ephesians is the temple guardian of the great Artemis, and of the image that fell from heaven?
So we have a city which is known for its adherence to the cult of the female goddess, Artemis. In this cult, women were the priests. Legend had it that the city was founded by the Amazons, and indeed, Amazon warrior women were a key component of the Artemis Temple. Artemis herself was regarded as the goddess of hunting, and as the "shooter of swift arrows", and as the "mistress of wild beasts".

Paul may have been referring allegorically to troubles with devotees of the Artemis cult when he writes elsewhere (1 Cor 15:32 NIV) that he had "fought wild beasts in Ephesus". (He uses this sort of beast-fighting-human imagery to describe run-ins with human opponents in 2 Tim 4:17, saying that he was "delivered from the lion's mouth".) Still elsewhere (1 Cor 16:9) Paul writes that in Ephesus "there are many who oppose" him.

Artemis was believed to be greater than her twin brother-god Apollo, as she had been born first.

In this city, women worshiped Artemis by wearing fancy clothing and fancy hair braids when they entered her temple. Artemis then endowed the women with sexual prowess to manipulate and dominate men, and she would save them during childbirth.

The men would worship by praying to her for victory in battle, as they held their hands, palms up, just above waist level.

Knowing these things, we can now see that when Paul writes to Timothy, whom he had left in Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3), he intended to contrast Christian worship with that of Artemis, which had apparently been a source of opposition for him and for Christians in general, perhaps specifically the men:
HCSB 1 Tim 2:8Therefore, I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument.9Also, the women are to dress themselves in modest clothing, with decency and good sense, not with elaborate hairstyles, gold, pearls, or expensive apparel,10but with good works, as is proper for women who affirm that they worship God.11A woman should learn in silence with full submission.12I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent.13For Adam was created first, then Eve.14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.15But she will be saved through childbearing, if she continues in faith, love, and holiness, with good judgment.
( This phrase "have authority over a man" is unique in the Bible, and we must turn to extra-Biblical material to learn that it has reference to a power struggle.)

So Paul is writing to a city in which the women "wore the pants" to a large extent, manipulating and dominating their husbands. In verse 21 he instructs the Ephesians to "submit to one another", and in verse 22 he essentially adds, "This applies to you too, you women; stop dominating your husbands; be submissive!"

I don't believe Paul is telling women to be door-mats, allowing their men to walk all over them. I believe he's telling them that they need to learn submission, just as all Christians should be submissive, one to another.

(Thanks for the insights provided by the Istoria Ministries Blog -

Originally published at:

Friday, February 06, 2015

Paul's Quotation-Response Style, and Women Remaining Silent

About half-way through Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, he turns his attention to addressing issues they had written to him about:
HCSB 1 Cor 7:1 Now in response to the matters you wrote about:
As he deals with these issues, he seems to adopt a style that I have often used myself. He first quotes something from their letter, and then gives his response to that quote. We see that here in the first issue he addresses.
HCSB 1 Cor 7:1 “It is good for a man not to have relations with a woman." But because sexual immorality is so common, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband.
The Corinthians are saying that it is good to avoid sex, and Paul's response is that this attitude leads to sexual immorality, and the proper "fix" is not to avoid sex, but to have a spouse.

On the next topic, concerning idols, he again quotes the letter they had written to him, and then provides his response:
HCSB 1 Cor 8:1 About food offered to idols: We know that “we all have knowledge." Knowledge inflates with pride, but love builds up. ... About eating food offered to idols, then, we know that “an idol is nothing in the world,” and that “there is no God but one.” ... However, not everyone has this knowledge.
The Corinthians are saying, "We have knowledge", and Paul responds, "Yes, but don't get all snooty; opt for love."

The Corinthians are saying, "We don't have to worry about idols; they're nothing", and Paul responds, "Yes, but not everyone has your knowledge; stop being bad examples to those people."

He then addresses their loose lifestyle, which they have adopted because they recognize that as Christians, they have freedom from restrictive law which their Jewish forbears did not.
HCSB 10:23 “Everything is permissible," but not everything is helpful. “Everything is permissible," but not everything builds up. 24 No one should seek his own good, but the good of the other person.
The Corinthians are spouting the slogan that "everything is permissible", but Paul is correcting them that even so, not everything is helpful or constructive, and such things should be judged in the light of how they do or do not help the other person.

I think you can see the pattern now. I want to show just one more example, and then a passage that looks similar to that example, which has been a point of contention for centuries.

This last example is back in chapter 6, wherein again the Corinthians are saying, "Everything is permissible" (v. 12). They're saying "Food is for the stomach and the stomach for food" (v. 13), having no effect on one's moral standing.

And in fact, this latter phrase agrees with what Jesus had said earlier:
HCSB Mark 7:18 And He said to them, “Are you also as lacking in understanding? Don’t you realize that nothing going into a man from the outside can defile him? 19 For it doesn’t go into his heart but into the stomach and is eliminated." (As a result, He made all foods clean.) 20 Then He said, “What comes out of a person—that defiles him.
But the Corinthians were also applying this philosophy to sexual encounters, to which Paul answers, using the food-stomach relationship they had used:
HCSB 1 Cor 6:13b The body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.
Paul continues his explanation, and in both verses 16 and 19, he uses a conjunction, "or", to start his sentence. Different versions render it in various ways:

HCSB Don’t you know...

ESV 16 Or do you not know...
YLT 16 have ye not known...

ISV 16 You know ..., don’t you?

KJV 16 What? know ye not...

The emphasis is that Paul is trying to get their attention with this conjunction. I think the KJV probably renders it best: "What?"

Maybe even add an exclamation point: "What?! Don't you get it?! Your body is a temple for GOD! Stop using it to sin!"

Now I want to turn to the last passage I mentioned. This same conjunction is also used in chapter 14. The text just before it, which I'll quote from the KJV, says:
KJV 1 Cor 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
But now look at the very next verse:
36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
This is in a passage wherein all the Christians have just been urged by Paul to use their God-given gifts within the church assembly to build up the members. Right in the middle of this passage is this short aside wherein Paul seemingly tells women to stay silent, and then immediately says, "What?! Has God given his gifts only to a select few?!"

Now, consider that for the past few chapters, Paul has been quoting what the Corinthians say, and then correcting what they say.

Is that perhaps happening here? Are the Corinthian men telling women to stay silent in the church assembly, appealing to some law which doesn't exist in the Law of Moses? Is Paul then correcting that false doctrine by pointing out that God hasn't spoken only through men who are saying this? (After all, women were the first people to be tasked with telling the good news (to men!) that Jesus was risen from the dead - Matt 28:5-7).

I believe it's a concept worth considering.

Originally published at:

Should We Bind Examples As We Do Commands?

I was recently asked if examples such as the meeting found in Acts 20:7 are to be considered binding.

My answer is: Yes, and No.

Paul writes:
HCSB 1 Cor 4:16 Therefore I urge you to imitate me.
HCSB 1 Cor 11:1 Imitate me, as I also imitate Christ.Now I praise you because you always remember me and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.
The implication, of course, is that whatever the first century church was doing, they were doing according to what Paul had taught them, and thus are traditions to be kept.

But that implication can be pressed beyond its breaking point. After all, they were baptizing for the dead (1 Cor 15:29); is that a tradition they learned from Paul, which we should be maintaining?

I think another question is the more relevant question: If examples are binding, how do we know which examples are binding and which aren't, and in what way/aspects is the example binding?"

For example, when we are told to imitate Paul (as in 1 Cor 4:16, cited above), does that mean we should imitate him in taking a vow and shaving our heads and offering animal sacrifices on the completion of that vow? Does it mean we should go on four missionary journeys across the Middle East? Does it mean we should have night-long church services?

Looking at the Acts 20:7 passage, how should we imitate this passage?

By meeting for supper on the last night a guest speaker is in town? By having church all night long every first day of the week? By having a healing service for dead young men? By having a long-winded lecture until past midnight when people are starting to fall asleep, and then having a group discussion from then until daybreak?

It seems to me that if WE bind something from an example, we'll be binding what WE perceive to matter, whereas our brother, equally devout, may perceive a different thing to matter, which HE then binds, and pretty soon, we're quarreling and then dividing.

So I think the binding we must do with examples is a binding only for ourselves, as we see happening in Romans 14 -- "each must be fully convinced in his own mind" -- without judging someone else who sees it differently. This means we must make room for other people to see it differently, which requires humility rather than "leaning on our own understanding".

Commandments (actually-stated, black-and-white, "direct" commands) are binding on all.

Examples (and inferences) are binding only on one's self according to how he understands the example (/inference).

This doesn't mean I can't try to persuade you to understand the example in the way I understand it, or to even believe you're wrong in your understanding, but it does mean I can't judge you for your understanding, right or wrong. I have to let you stand on your own feet before the Lord. And that's okay, because "[you] will stand. For the Lord is able to make [you] stand" (Rom 14:4).

Originally published at:

Thursday, February 05, 2015

Baptism = Pouring

"What?!" you say. "'baptizo' means 'immerse'! Everyone knows that."

Yes, that's what I thought.

But just now, a thought came into my head, and I checked out some relevant passages. Here they are:
ESV Luke 3:16 John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
ESV Acts 1: 4 And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
ESV Acts 2:33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.
ESV Acts 10:45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles.

So the promise was that Jesus would baptize, but the description is of pouring.

Originally published at:

Wednesday, February 04, 2015

Church Giving in the First Century

The contribution in the very early years (Acts 2 - 7) went to address the needs of the local Christians. These earliest Christians were "voluntary communists", dividing their possessions among each other so that none had need (Acts 2:44-45; 4:34-35).

It was voluntary, not compulsory (Acts 5:4).

Later, when hard times hit the saints in Jerusalem, the Gentile Christians in Antioch took up a collection to send to the Jewish Christians back in Jerusalem, via Paul and Barnabas (Acts 11:27-30).

When the Jewish leaders there asked Paul to help, he was glad to do so (Gal 2:10). He began a fund-raising effort among the Gentile churches in Macedonia/Achaia/Galatia/Corinth; the basic instructions are found in 1 Cor 16:1-2. This was a year-long fund-raiser, with a definite start and a definite finish (2 Cor 8:10-11), and was not a command but an appeal (2 Cor 8:8), and was designed to bring parity between the Haves and the Have-Nots, with the expectation that should the situation reverse, such that the Jerusalem church prospered and the Gentiles were needy, the flow of money would also reverse, to go the other direction (2 Cor 8:13-14). Paul did not expect a contribution from those who didn't have (2 Cor 8:11-12), but only from those who had prospered (1 Cor 16:2).

In addition to this contribution for the financial equality of all Christians, Christians are expected to support themselves (Gal 6:5; 2 Thess 3:8-10), to support their own family (1 Tim 5:8), to have a job so they can help the needy (Eph 4:28), and lastly, to support the spread of the gospel, via paying preachers/missionaries/etc (1 Cor 9:1-14; Gal 6:6; 1 Tim 5:17-18).

Tuesday, February 03, 2015

Baptizing Bread

I know that some people agonize with worry about whether their nose tip got pushed under water when they were baptized, wondering if it didn't, if that invalidates their baptism.

It just struck me that derivatives of the word baptizo are used to describe the dipping of bread into the bread-dip at the Last Supper, and to describe the dipping of a finger into cool water.

Matt 26:23 embapsas (having dipped with the hand in the dish)
Mark 14:20 embaptomenos (is dipping with me into the bowl)
Luke 16:24 bapse (he might dip finger in cool water)
John 13:26 bapso (will dip)
John 13:26 bapsas (having dipped)

The bread probably was not fully immersed when it was "baptized" into the bowl. I can't say whether or not this has relevance to a nose-tip not making it under the water during baptism. Let each one be fully convinced in his own mind.

Originally published at:

Acts 20

 ESV Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight.

As you may recall, there was a "Second Passover", a month after the first, for those who could not, for reason of being ceremonially unclean (e.g. for having touched a corpse, etc), participate in the first one. You can read about this in Numbers 9:1-14.

Although the timing is somewhat off, the Acts 20:7 event could conceivably be this second Passover.

Luke and his contingent sailed from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread (Acts 20:6). So they sailed at least one week after the first Passover. It took 5 days to each Troas; that's almost a second week. Then they spent seven days at Troas. That's a third week.

If Luke and his company waited an extra 10 days after the Feast of Unleavened Bread before setting sail, instead of leaving immediately after (maybe they wanted to visit another week, or they were having trouble getting on a ship, with all the hordes from the Feast week vying for tickets), that puts the Acts 20:7 meal right on the mark for the second Passover.

Granted, this is just speculation, but it's worth putting on the table for consideration.

Another thing about Acts 20:7, there's no indication whatsoever that they had not been meeting every day that week. There's no indication that they were, but there's no indication that they weren't. It would be more consistent with Paul's standard method of operating to meet daily with the locals. Otherwise the group has just wasted a week (even more for Paul, who had already been there a while - v. 5) waiting seven days for meeting-time.

Likewise, there's no indication that they had not been eating supper together every night that week. After all, people do eat pretty much every day.

If we were writing a brief account of one of our travels, we might write something like, "So we left Hickstown after the Parade Day, was on the road for five days, and got to Dingleville, where we stayed seven days, having a gospel meeting. The first day of the next week, when we had gathered for supper, expecting to leave the next morning, an amazing thing happened. Let me tell you about it."

There's no reason to conclude from this reading that the "gathering for supper" is anything special, or that it hadn't been done every night of the week.

Or, maybe it was a special supper, but not the Lord's Supper; maybe it was a going away supper for the visiting missionaries. Don't we do that sort of thing in our time?

Or maybe the local synagogue always met for supper after the close of the Sabbath assemblies; don't some of us often do that in our churches in our time?

I'm more inclined to think that Paul's crew had been meeting with the locals all week, and when the Sabbath rolled around, they met again in the synagogue, as was Paul's custom, and at the close of the Sabbath, after sundown marked the start of the first day of the week, everyone left the synagogue and met in their "fellowship hall" for a pot luck, just like we often do after Sunday morning assemblies. While the women were preparing the food (they wouldn't have prepared it on the Sabbath itself, both because of their cultural conditioning and so they wouldn't be offensive to the not-yet-converted Jews in their realm of influence), the men talked a long time (the women listening as best they could while cooking), and one of the young men fell asleep and fell out the window. After the excitement of that event, they all went back inside to the dining hall, where the women served the meal, and then the women cleaned up, later joining the men who were in deep discussion until daybreak. And if the Lord's Supper was conducted as a part of this meal (as Jesus had done in the original Lord's Supper, and as the Corinthians had been doing, but selfishly in that they were looking just to feed their own faces, and as probably referenced in Jude 1:12 as a "Love Feast", and as probably intimated in 2 Peter 2:13), it's probably the women who served the Lord's Supper to the congregation, unlike our modern practice where we exclude the women from being servers, because somehow we equate serving with leading or teaching or wresting authority from the men.

And if any of the travelers were meticulous about keeping the Law (which we know Paul was - v. 24 of the very next chapter), they would not be traveling on the Sabbath, which would add another reason for waiting until the first day of the week before having a final meal with everyone.

That's not even touching the meaning of "mia ton sabbaton" as idiomatically meaning "first day of the week" as opposed to the literal meaning of "first [or one] of the sabbaths". People a lot smarter in Greek than I am come done on both sides of the issue (even though most of the standard consensus writers claim it's an idiom meaning "first of the week").

In other words, there are a lot of gray, unanswered questions about this text, and for us to be dogmatic about any one of them is, in my estimation, unwise.

Originally published at: