Westing Peacefully

Sorry Pop; I'm Stickin' With My Wife

2012-01-27T06:43:00.002-06:00

Maybe Adam felt guilty for not teaching Eve more completely. After all, when the serpent tempted her, she revealed she misunderstood the command, for she told the serpent (Gen 3:2):

We may eat the fruit from the trees in the garden. But about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God said, "You must not eat it or touch it, or you will die.”

whereas in reality, God had said nothing about touching the fruit; He had just forbidden the eating of the fruit (Gen 2:17).

Maybe it wasn't guilt (maybe Eve just wasn't paying attention in class that day), but rather empathy. Maybe it was just extreme love. Or maybe it was some other motivation we can only guess at. But the result was that when Eve came to Adam to offer him the forbidden fruit, he knowingly chose Death in order to be with his wife rather than with his Parent, God. The apostle Paul wrote (1 Tim 2:14) that "Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived...".

It's ironic, I suppose, but God established that it should be this way. After forming Eve from Adam's rib, He stated (Gen 1:24):

This is why a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh.

Eve was deceived; Adam chose. He left his "father" and "mother" and chose Death in order to stand by his wife.

If that action had not have destined the rest of us to pain and death, we might would have thought he was honorable for doing so. Consider his other option: letting her wither and die while he continued on in perfect health. I have no idea how that would have worked out, but we'd see his actions as a bit selfish in that case, I suspect.

Could it be that God saw that Adam made decisions based on what was best for his wife, and saw that Eve was more prone to making decisions based on emotional issues (what is pretty - Gen 3:6), and this is why He said that her husband would have the rule over her (Gen 3:16)?

I don't know; I'm just thinking out loud.

Breastplate of Righteousness, Helmet of Salvation

2012-01-19T16:27:00.003-06:00

Many Christians are familiar with the Ephesians 6:13ff passage urging us to put on the whole armor of God:

Take up the full armor of God... the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the shoes of preparation of the gospel of peace, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, the sword of the Spirit.

The context of this passage is that our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against worldly darkness and the spiritual forces of evil. Our job is to resist the dark evil, to stand firm, clothed in full spiritual armor, praying at all times in the Spirit.

But since we're not very well versed in the Jewish Scriptures, we fail to realize that Paul probably had in the back of his mind, and intended to remind his readers of, a passage in Isaiah 59:17, in which context God looks around and sees the evil in the world, and taking it upon himself to put on the breastplate of righteousness and the helmet of salvation and the robe of vengeance, then goes out to repay fury to his adversaries and recompense to his enemies according to their deeds.

In Isaiah, God is wearing the armor, and takes physical vengeance on evil-doers. In Ephesians, we, on God's side, wear our own set of armor, but not the robe of vengeance, and our battle is not physical but spiritual.

I think Paul's readers would have connected these two passages; I think maybe we should also.

Celebrating Christmas?

2011-12-20T15:22:00.002-06:00

In my church culture growing up (and even recently in a Wednesday evening sermonette), it has been stressed that Christmas is not to be celebrated by Christians as a Holy Day, as it's not Biblically authorized, coming instead from a mingling of pagan celebrations and Catholic traditions.

Okay, if you don't want to celebrate Christmas in honor of Jesus' birth, I have no problem with that. Romans 14 makes it clear that people are going to come to different conclusions about such matters:

^{HCSB Rom 14:5} One person considers one day to be above another day. Someone else considers every day to be the same. Each one must be fully convinced in his own mind. ⁶ Whoever observes the day, observes it to the Lord. Whoever eats, eats to the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; and whoever does not eat, it is to the Lord that he does not eat, yet he thanks God. ⁷ For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. ⁸ If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

Paul continues that we should not offend one another in these issues, and that we are to get along, not looking down on one another over "doubtful issues" (v.1), saying that each of God's servants stands or falls before the Lord, not before us criticizers (v. 4), and that "stand he will! For the Lord is able to make him stand" (v. 4).

He finishes up this chapter with:

²¹ It is a noble thing not to eat meat, or drink wine, or do anything that makes your brother stumble. ²² Do you have faith? Keep it to yourself before God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. ²³ But whoever doubts stands condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith, and everything that is not from faith is sin.

This last line is often paired with Romans 10:17 ("faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God") to conclude that anything we do in a religious sense must be authorized by the written Word of God, but I believe that's mixing two different "faith" definitions. The Romans 10:17 faith is a faith that brings us into a saved relationship with Jesus; the Romans 14:23 faith is a confidence that we not condemning ourselves by what we approve (v. 22), specifically in the realm of disputable matters such as eating of certain meets or observing certain holidays, etc, which Paul plainly states is okay either way so long as it's done in honor of the Lord.

Now, one final point:

^{HCSB Luke 2:10} But the angel said to them, "Don't be afraid, for look, I proclaim to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people: ¹¹ today a Savior, who is Messiah the Lord, was born for you in the city of David. ¹² This will be the sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped snugly in cloth and lying in a manger."

The written word of God said that the birth of Jesus is good news of great joy for all people. Then these angels broke out in joyous praise, followed by a party-attitude of the shepherds, the old man Simeon, and the old woman Anna. Should we not also be allowed to have a party-attitude about the birth of Jesus?

If so, when? Every day? Once a month? Once a year? Twice in a lifetime? How often, and when, does the Scripture tell us to celebrate the birth of Jesus?

It doesn't.

But it does tell us that his birth is worth celebrating, for all the people, not just for those immediately involved. It seems to me that the frequency and timing has been left up to us.

But if you don't want to, that's between you and God, as Romans 14 says. On the other hand, if you do want to, that's between you and God, as Romans 14 says.

i Corinthians 16:1-2

2011-12-18T21:00:00.001-06:00

^{HCSB 1 Corinthians 16:1} Now about the collection for the saints: you should do the same as I instructed the Galatian churches. ² On the first day of the week, each of you is to set something aside and save to the extent that he prospers, so that no collections will need to be made when I come.

What the Bible Says	What We Claim
A command to the churches of Galatia and Corinth (v. 1) (and presumably Macedonia - 2 Cor 8:1)	A command for all churches
For the specific purpose of financially helping the saints who were in poverty (v. 1; 2 Cor 8:14)	Mostly used for institutional purposes rather than personal financial relief of the saints
Had a definite completion (2 Cor 8:10-11)	Never-ending.

^{HCSB 2 Corinthians 8:1} We want you to know, brothers, about the grace of God granted to the churches of Macedonia.... ³ I testify that, on their own, according to their ability and beyond their ability, ⁴ they begged us insistently for the privilege of sharing in the ministry to the saints.... ⁶ So we urged Titus that, just as he had begun, so he should also complete this grace to you.... ¹⁰ Now I am giving an opinion on this because it is profitable for you, who a year ago began not only to do something but also to desire it. ... ¹¹ But now finish the task as well, that just as there was eagerness to desire it, so there may also be a completion from what you have. ... ¹³ It is not that there may be relief for others and hardship for you, but it is a question of equality — ¹⁴ at the present time your surplus is [available] for their need, so that their abundance may also become [available] for your need, that there may be equality. ... ¹⁸ With [Titus] we have sent the brother [who] was also appointed by the churches to accompany us with this gift that is being administered by us, ... taking this precaution so no one can find fault with us concerning this large sum administered by us.

So what's the point? We should not be making the claim that "We are commanded in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 to give every first day of the week...".

Use it as an example. Make inferences if you like. But don't claim that it's a command to us for an on-going practice of paying the church mortgage and staff salaries.

Role Reversal

2011-12-11T23:27:00.002-06:00

At the end of Mark 1 we learn about a leper who met Jesus. Being a leper, he had to stay out of town, far away from people and civilization.

Jesus, going from town to town to teach and heal, meets this leper, and heals him, telling him to keep quiet about it.

Yet the former leper doesn't keep quiet; he goes and tells everyone, so that Jesus is no longer able to openly enter any town lest he be mobbed by the crowds. Instead, he has to stay out in the wilderness.

Before the healing, Jesus went all over, while the leper had to stay in the desert, away from the towns.

After the healing, their roles were reversed, the leper went all over, while Jesus had to stay in the desert, away from the towns.

Thanks to Daniel Egan (http://tinyurl.com/74k8lyj) for this insight.

Hershey's Chocolate Air Delight Kisses

2011-12-11T23:01:00.002-06:00

Mmm, the TV advert makes them seem so wonderful; let me go spend my money to buy half the chocolate at the same price.

Oh, wait. Half the chocolate? For the same taste? And the same price? Am I being manipulated by marketing?

Well, if I were to buy this product, yes, yes I would be. But I'm not falling for it.

Marketers. Pfft.

Surprising Realizations

2011-12-10T21:16:00.000-06:00

* The Bible does not say that Jesus fell while carrying the cross.

* Abraham's wife, Sarah, was protected from the sexual advances of Abimelech. Why aren't other women so protected? Perhaps because it was important that Sarah be the mate of only Abraham in order to be the mother of The Promise?

* The popular song says, "We bow down, and we crown you the king", but really, there is no scriptural indication of anyone but God ever crowning Jesus as king. Humanly-speaking, we can crown him king of our own lives, but it's not a scriptural phraseology.

Israel Couldn't Sing, So They Put Away Their Instruments

2011-12-09T11:35:00.006-06:00

Wow! I've never noticed this before.

^{HCSB Psalm 137:1} By the rivers of Babylon—
there we sat down and wept
when we remembered Zion.
² There we hung up our lyres
on the poplar trees,
³ for our captors there asked us for songs,
and our tormentors, for rejoicing:
"Sing us one of the songs of Zion."
⁴ How can we sing the LORD's song
on foreign soil?

I'm familiar with the idea that the synagogue assembly arose during the time of the Exile, with verse 2 above indicating that non-Temple singing became non-instrumental at this time. But when I read this for what it says, rather than for what I'm looking for, I see something I've never seen before.

The captors asked the Israelites to sing songs of Zion, but they were too broken-hearted to do so, so they put away their instruments.

Notice that they did not put away their instruments and then sing non-instrumentally. They put away their instruments because they couldn't sing. Had they been able to sing, they would not have put away their instruments.

Wives, Submit to Your Husbands

2011-12-07T23:33:00.002-06:00

^{HCSB Eph 5:22} Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord...

All my life this has been interpreted for me to mean that wives were to be submissive to their husbands. And that is true, in context.

Look at the previous verse:

²¹ submitting to one another in the fear of Christ.

So we are all told to submit to one another, but then wives are singled out as needing to be submissive to their husbands. Why? Is it because women need more instruction than men in being submissive to one another?

Let's look at one more aspect of the context. This letter was written to the people in the city of Ephesus. Ephesus, as you'll recall from Acts 19 (and from extra-Biblical history), was the headquarters of the cult of Diana/Artemis. This was a matriarchal town, in which the women were the priests; the women were the government officials; the women wore the pants in the home. These women who were converting to Jesus had spent their entire lives believing that women were to be in charge.

Paul was telling these Ephesians to submit to one another, and emphasizing to the women that the Christian culture was different than that to which they were accustomed, and to stop lording it over the men.

This background may also have bearing on the instructions written to Timothy, who was the church leader in Ephesus at the time (1 Tim 1:3):

^{HCSB 1 Tim 2:11} A woman should learn in silence with full submission. ¹² I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent.

Humming As Communication

2011-12-06T14:59:00.002-06:00

It's been said that humming does not communicate, as does actual speech.

I disagree. It may usually communicate nothing, but if I hum the tune to "Amazing Grace" (or the theme from "The Flinstones"), that will put ideas and images and even words into your head.

Granted, that communication is dependent on a shared culture, and so does not communicate new information the way speech is able to do, but humming is not always or entirely void of communicative value.

Just an observation.

Citing Uninspired Text as Inspired

2011-12-05T16:55:00.002-06:00

Reading through the Biblical book of Job, I had a thought.

Most of the book relates the back-and-forth arguments between four people. These arguments often contain tidbits that strike us as wise or true, and we might be tempted to quote these tidbits as God-inspired Truth. For example:

^{HCSB Job 18:18} He is driven from light to darkness and chased from the inhabited world. ...²¹ Indeed, such is the dwelling of the wicked, and this is the place of the one who does not know God.

But the gist of the whole book is that these men don't know what they're talking about; they're humans, grappling with the issue of evil in the world, trying to make sense of it. But in the end it's revealed that they simply don't have the answers.

So when we quote these passages as God-given Truth, we're making a mistake. We're quoting fallible humans who don't know what they're talking about, and calling it God's message. This is not God's message to us, but rather Man's guesswork.

We do the same thing with the healed man in John 9; we cite his statement that "God doesn't listen to sinners" (v. 31) as if this is a truth from God. It may indeed be true, but it's a message from a mere uninspired man; we should not quote it as an inspired message from God.

Likewise, even though we know the centurion at the cross spoke truth when he stated that Jesus really was the Son of God (Mark 15:39), we should not cite him as an inspired speaker of God's word.

Obvious examples could also be given, such as when the Assyrians came against Jerusalem and said that Israel's God could not save them from the Assyrians (2 Kings 19:9-13). We know not to cite this passage as inspired Truth, for whereas we know it's true that the words were spoken, we also know the words that were spoken were not true.

The problem is that when we find something we want to be true, we're willing to cite it as God-inspired Truth, even if it, like the obvious non-truth above, is uttered by a non-inspired speaker.

Conclusion: Just because the text is recorded in the Bible by inspiration, that doesn't mean the text is inspired Truth, and we should not cite it as such.

A Plan, or a Promise?

2011-11-21T23:02:00.002-06:00

At http://tinyurl.com/7dc5zav I read an entry by Justin which I found thought-catching. (I've paraphrased/cleaned it a bit.)

What if (and it is a hypothetical WHAT IF)… there is NO plan, just "God with us" (that’s Biblical). What if we come upon situations and God says, "Make a choice; you and I will explore that path together." This is not talking about “right” and “wrong” actions, but rather about paths in our lives. For instance: Is there ONLY one person for me to marry that God has planned from the beginning, OR, is there more than one person that I may come upon in my life that I am more compatible with than others? Or, what career should I take in life? Perhaps that’s not all planned out either, but together with God we are supposed to make those tough choices, reassured that God is there with us THROUGH this journey. NOT saying I completely adhere to this theology (and as crazy as it sounds, this is real theology out there, not something I came up with), but it is a viable question to ask.

Self-Serve Health Care

2011-11-02T15:07:00.003-05:00

I think we have enough technological know-how to pull it off. Why don't we have kiosks in emergency room waiting areas, in pharmacies, and in Wal-Marts, where we can get our own triage diagnostics on basic issues?

Imagine you're a 45-year old single man, laying in bed at 1am, and your chest is hurting. You've never had chest pains; they're not painful, just uncomfortable and worrisome. You don't immediately exhibit other symptoms of a heart-attack, like sweating, or tingling in the fingers, but the more you lay there wondering if you might be having a heart-attack, the more you talk yourself into sweating, and feeling tingling down your left arm.

Do you call an ambulance, and incur a $1200 bill for maybe nothing? Do you drive yourself to the E.R., wait in their lobby for 45 minutes, finally get checked in, wait another 4 hours while it seems no one is doing much to/for you, and then finally leave after being told you're fine, it's just a pinched nerve in your spine, and paying another $200 deductible on your insurance, followed by a miserable day at work from lack of sleep?

Or do you keep lying in bed, wondering, until you actually do have a heart attack and die?

We have technology. This is fixable.

The E.R. waiting room should have kiosks and monitoring equipment that has clear instructions for clamping on a sensor or three, that checks whatever needs to be checked to give basic indications of your health: blood pressure, heart rate, EKG readings, oxygen level in your blood, chemical indicators in a mouth-swab or even a finger-prick. There should be a safe "x-ray" machine for checking for bone breaks, for when your 13-year old kid falls and then complains about his arm hurting worse than ever before, but you think he's just being a drama-queen.

Yes, I realize this technology does not exist, at least cheaply and safely, Today. But it's just a technological issue. It can exist Tomorrow.

And that would improve the health of many, and save billions of dollars in medical costs. If the kiosk indicates a problem, then you check into the E.R. If not, you go home, having spent a few dollars on gas, and maybe $5 (to cover sensors, pin-prickers, etc) on the kiosk session. The $5 will prevent abuse of the system, but is low enough to allow all but the poorest to get immediate feedback on their health concerns.

I believe it can be done. I believe it could be done by private individuals who have cross-over knowledge in both medicine and electronics/chemical technologies, or by the medical industry itself, or as a last resort, by government, serving in its role of protecting the general welfare of the populace. I think it hasn't been done, mostly because of inertia. But what we have now, and have used for decades, is no longer working. It's time to put technology to work for us.

Pan-Worship Out; Yeshua-Worship In

2011-10-07T09:34:00.002-05:00

Matthew 16:18

... upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

Yeshua had just taken his disciples to Caesarea Philippi, which was built on a massive rock, and which was the headquarters for the cult of Pan, the half-man, half-goat god. In the side of this rock was a cave from which issued the beginnings of the Jordan River, and which was incorporated into Pan-worship as the Gates of Hades, through which Pan descended into the depths of the earth every Winter and ascended every Spring. Before this cave, on a flat space of rock, was a temple to Pan, in which massive orgies (of every kind of sex, including homosexuality and with goats) were conducted in worship to this god of earth fertility, to assure good crops.

I suspect that Yeshua and his followers were standing on this rock foundation, his young disciples awed with confusion, interest, and guilt for being at such a place of sin, when Yeshua announced, that here, on this rock, he would build his regularly-assembled community, and the gates of Hades can't do a thing about it.

It would be like your youth minister taking the senior boys to the local strip club before regular business hours, standing on-stage, and announcing that here, on this stage, the assembly of Christ will meet, and there's nothing the forces of worldliness can do about it. Everyone would be shocked, and think the youth minister was corrupting the youth, as well as being out of his mind.

Interestingly, Christians often assemble at this site of former demon-worship now, following in the footsteps of their Messiah. Pan-worship has faded away; Christ's assembly is overpowering the forces of Death.

Tear into the Word Like a Lion Eating His Prey!

2011-09-23T15:19:00.006-05:00

onomatopoeia - a word that imitates the sound it makes, like "buzz", "boom", "meow", "oink", "roar".

A Hebrew onomatopoeia is "hagah". After a lion has taken down its prey, and is settling in to start supper, he might encourage himself to dig in with a hearty "hagaaaahhh", or to discourage a multitude of shepherds from even thinking about interfering with his lamb supper with a threatening "HAGAAAHHH!!!".

Now read Isaiah 31:4 -

^{WEB Isaiah 31:4} For thus says Yahweh to me,
“As the lion and the young lion growling [hagah-ing] over his prey,

if a multitude of shepherds is called together against him,

will not be dismayed at their voice,

nor abase himself for their noise,

so Yahweh of Armies will come down to fight on Mount Zion and on its heights."

Okay, now you have the word picture. "Hagah" is representative of heartily tearing into a meal and viciously defending it from attackers.

Now read Psalm 1:1-2 -

^{WEB Psalm 1:1} Blessed is the man who doesn’t walk in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stand on the path of sinners,

nor sit in the seat of scoffers;

² but his delight is in Yahweh’s law.

On his law he meditates day and night.

That word "meditate"? Yep. It's "hagah". On his law he digs forcefully in.

And also Joshua 1:8 -

^{WEB Joshua 1:8} This book of the law shall not depart out of your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then you shall make your way prosperous, and then you shall have good success.

Once again, the word "meditate" is "hagah".

As a lion growling over his prey as the shepherds circle around, so we should dig into the law of YHWH.

This article is originally published at http://kentwest.blogspot.com/2011/09/tear-into-word-like-lion-eating-his.html

Fictional Heroes: Who I Am

2011-09-18T13:47:00.002-05:00

It was a dark and stormy night. A shot rang out. Suddenly, a ship appeared on the horizon.

That's how his novel starts. I'm still waiting to see how Snoopy ties it all together in the second chapter. I've been waiting quite a while. Probably around 35 years or so. But I always knew that Snoopy was all about vivid imaginations, and that he one day would tie these disparate events together.

About the same time I was reading Peanut's booklets, I was also reading Archie comics. I remember the principal of Archie's high school teaching Archie that old cliché: "Winners never quit, and quitters never win."

Then there was the book series that had as its hero the guy with the ring that left a tattoo on his enemies' faces when he'd punch them; I can't remember his name, but I do remember that he could walk in a dark cave/tunnel, flipping on his light only for a second, memorizing what he saw, and then walk confidently in the dark for a good distance.

This guy was probably the lead-in for my later influence by Louis L'amour characters; be observant, travel by different routes to avoid patterns, do the Right Thing even when it costs, move silently when needed, don't waste bullets by missing your target; not that I'm good at any of these things.

Captain Kirk taught boldness, and risk-taking, and adventure.

Spock taught logic, and emotional control.

Bret Maverick and Jim Rockford taught the use of brains over brawn.

Col. Robert Hogan demonstrated coolness when trouble arises, and the ability to turn a bad situation, even being stuck in a WWII German POW camp, to your favor.

James West and Batman showed the importance of having the right tools, and of being prepared. Sometimes that tool is a well-trained horse or a derringer hidden in your boot heel; sometimes it's a Utility Belt or a car customized with safety nets and oil sprays.

Robert Petrie showed that a man should be a good and loving husband and father.

The Rifleman taught determination and bravery.

David Banner/the Hulk taught that we're different people in different situations, but that our basic character still shows through.

The Robinson family and the rest of the crew of the Jupiter 2 taught the necessity of keeping hopeful.

Dr. Richard Kimble amplified on that by teaching the principle of never giving in to hopelessness.

I'm sure there were lots of others.

I'm struck that so much of who I am came from television and books.

Then, there's Homer Simpson. D'oh!

Are we commanded to always say "in Jesus' name" in all our prayers?

2011-09-16T14:17:00.000-05:00

Although we're commanded to pray in Jesus' name, are we commanded to always say "in Jesus' name" in all our prayers?

It is possible to do something in Jesus' name without uttering the phrase "in Jesus' name". We're told to do all things in Jesus' name (Col 3:17), not just pray. Yet when we sing, we don't start off each song (or end each one) with the phrase "in Jesus' name". When we assemble, we don't announce that "we're meeting today in Jesus' name". This is because the unstated assumption is that when we meet as Christians (or change an old lady's flat tire, or walk past the brothel instead of into it, or give back the extra change the cashier incorrectly gave to us, etc), we're doing so in Jesus' name. There is no reason to announce this fact each time we do something (although there's nothing wrong with announcing it). Adding the phrase to each prayer is a man-made tradition that has become a doctrine for some of us.
Here are examples of New Testament prayers which do not include the phrase "in Jesus' name":
- The Lord's Prayer : Matt 6:9-13; Luke 11:2-4
- Jesus' Prayer for Unity : John 17
- Jesus' prayer on cross, asking forgiveness for his murderers : Lk 23:34
- Jesus' prayer on cross, asking "why" : Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34
- Jesus' prayer on cross, committing his spirit to God : Luke 23:46
- The prayer of the justified sinner : Luke 18:13-14
- Prayer for Judas' replacement : Acts 1:24
- Prayer of thanksgiving for God's help against the authorities : Acts 4:24ff
- Prayer for unity among the Romans : Rom 15:5-6
- Prayer for joy & peace in the Romans : Rom 15:13
- Paul's closing prayer for the Corinthians: 2 Cor 13:13
- Paul's prayer for the Ephesians : Eph 3:14-21
- Paul's prayer for the Thessalonians : 1 Thess 3:11-13
- Another of Paul's prayers for the Thessalonians : 1 Thess 5:23-24
- Another of Paul's prayers for the Thessalonians : 2 Thess 2:16-17
- Another of Paul's prayers for the Thessalonians : 2 Thess 3:16
- Peter's prayer for the people of the Dispersion : 1 Pet 5:10-11
- John's prayer : Rev 1:5b-6
- John's prayer to Jesus for him to come : Rev 22:20
- John's prayer for the grace of Jesus to be with all the saints : Rev 22:21
It is quite appropriate, however, to announce that what you're doing (or what God is doing) is being done through Jesus:
- Romans 7: 24-25: "24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord."
- Rom 16:25-27: "25 Now to Him who has power to strengthen you according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the sacred secret kept silent for long ages, 26 but now revealed and made known through the prophetic Scriptures, according to the command of the eternal God, to advance the obedience of faith among all nations— 27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ—to Him be the glory forever! Amen."
- 1 Cor 15:57: "57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!"
- Heb 13:20-32: "20 Now may the God of peace, who brought up from the dead our Lord Jesus—the great Shepherd of the sheep—with the blood of the everlasting covenant, 21 equip you with all that is good to do His will, working in us what is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen."
- Jude 1:24-25: "24 Now to Him who is able to protect you from stumbling and to make you stand in the presence of His glory, blameless and with great joy, 25 to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, power, and authority before all time, now, and forever. Amen."
CONCLUSION: It is entirely appropriate to announce that we are praying in Jesus' name, but it is not commanded to do so, and we have many New Testament prayers in which it is not done. Therefore, we are not to bind the practice, lest we be found to be teaching as doctrine a commandment of men rather than of God.

Levels of Reward/Punishment in the Afterlife?

2011-09-16T14:16:00.000-05:00

Are There Various Levels of Punishment/Reward in the Afterlife?

Yes	No
The Parable of the 10 Minas – Luke 19:11ff. The workers are rewarded according to their performance.	The Parable of the Vineyard Workers – Matt 20:1-15 . Equal reward not dependent on performance.
Judgment to be more tolerable for Sodom, or for Tyre & Sidon, than for other cities (Luke 10:12ff).	Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved – Acts 2:21
We will be repaid for what we've done in the body (Luke 14:14; Rom 2:6; 2 Cor 5:10).	In truth, I understand that God doesn't show favoritism.... - Acts 10:34 (In the context of God saving both Jew and Gentile.)
If your work survives the fire, you will be rewarded; if it does not survive the fire, you will still be saved, but as though escaping fire (1 Cor 3:12-15).	Equality is the goal, regardless of what one does or does not have (2 Cor 8:12-15). (In the context of Christians sharing worldly goods with one another. )
There is a “prophet's reward”, and there is a “righteous person's reward” (Matt 10:41).	No one who believes on Him will be put to shame; there is no distinction between Jew & Greek, since the same Lord of all is rich to all who call on Him; for everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (Rom 10:11-13).
We each are rewarded according to what we have done (Matt 16:27; 1 Cor 3:8; Rev 22:12)
Some will be least in the kingdom of heaven; some will be greatest (Matt 5:19; 18:4).
We'll be measured by the measure we ourselves use (Mark 4:24).
Many will recline at the table in the kingdom of God, but some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last (Luke 13:29-30).
The One who evaluates me is the Lord, and praise will come to each one from God (1 Cor 4:4-5).
We will judge angels & things pertaining to this life (1 Cor 6:3).
The wrongdoer will be paid back for whatever wrong he has done, and there is no favoritism (Col 3:25).
Teachers will receive a stricter judgment (Jam 3:1).

Be Still and Know

2011-09-16T13:12:00.002-05:00

Psalm 46:10, KJV

Be still, and know that I am God....

I always thought it meant to sit quietly and meditate and realize that God is in control.

But reading it in a different version, the Holman Christian Standard Version, I find a different slant:

Stop [your fighting]—and know that I am God....

And looking at it in the Young's Literal Translation:

Desist, and know that I [am] God....

When we put the verse in context, it looks like maybe Holman's has it right:

⁸ Come, see the works of the LORD,
who brings devastation on the earth.
⁹ He makes wars cease throughout the earth.
He shatters bows and cuts spears to pieces;
He burns up the chariots.
¹⁰ "Stop [your fighting]—and know that I am God,
exalted among the nations, exalted on the earth."
¹¹ The LORD of Hosts is with us;
the God of Jacob is our stronghold.

Sing and Make Melody, but Not with Your Mouths or Hands

2011-08-30T15:25:00.007-05:00

I'm no Hebrew or Greek expert, but when I just read Psalms 27:6, it clicked in my head that Paul was probably alluding to it when he wrote Ephesians 5:19.

Psalms 27:6d - (HCSB)

I will sing and make music to the LORD.

Ephesians 5:19b - (HCSB)

singing and making music to the Lord in your heart,

If this is correct, unless the Psalmist was declaring that only his making music was to the Lord, but not his singing, then the subclause "to the Lord [in your heart]" belongs to both the "sing" and the "make music" sides of the conjunction, and not just the "make music" side. In other words, this rendering:

sing to the Lord [in your heart] and make music to the Lord [in your heart]

is the more correct rendering than:

make music to the Lord [in your heart], and sing

This view agrees with the grammatically-specific wording of Ephesians 5:19 to "speak" to one another, not to "sing". In other words, taking the verse at its strictest sense, we are not to sing at all, but to speak to one another, while our singing and making melody is done strictly in the heart.

This also agrees with the technically-correct grammatical rendering of its sister passage in Colossians 3:16, which tells us that we should be "singing with grace in your hearts" (KJV), not with your mouths.

Unless, of course, Paul did not mean "only in the heart", the way many of us have taught it for decades.

What's my point? My point is that if we're going to make a whole doctrine out of the technical grammar of the verse, we can't just go half-way. We've gotta be consistent. And this approach that limits making music to be in our hearts only but not in outward forms also limits our singing to being in our hearts only and not in outward forms. If my logic or my understanding of the wording is wrong, please correct me. But don't just react because this touches on a pet doctrine of yours; please honestly evaluate my logic and the wording of the passages.

The Great Bovine Dream, Shattered

2011-08-30T09:25:00.004-05:00

This story is from 1 Samuel 6.

The Israelites had gone to war against the Philistines against God's will, and the Philistines defeated the Israelites, and stole the ark of the covenant. While the ark was in the possession of the Philistines, bad things kept happening to the Philistine city in which the ark was kept. So finally the Philistines said, "Let's send this ark home. But how will we know for sure this is YHWH's hand against us, and not just a coincidence?" And the Philistine wise-men suggested that they put the ark on a new cart, and hook up two cows that had never been hooked up to a cart before, and see if the cows leave their calves behind, against their nature, and pull a cart to which they've never been trained, working as a team which they've never done before, and if they leave their home, which would be against their nature, and pull the cart to Israel; if these things happened, then they'd know it was God's doing and not just a chance thing.

They did these things, and the cows, who always thought they deserved the Great Ameri..., uh, Bovine Dream of having a happy family and a big house in the 'burbs with a two-car garage, and 2.5 calves, and a mini-van, left their calves, and left their home, and pulled the cart, and worked as a team. They cried the whole way ("lowing the whole way"), and when they arrived, they were not informed what a great lesson they provided; they were not thanked; they were apparently not even given a handful of hay or a drink or water; instead, they were killed and roasted as a sacrifice.

Here's the key: they never knew what the purpose of their lives were. Yet, 2500 years later their lives still glorify YHWH. Even though they never knew this would be the case.

Today, you may be one of those cows. Rejoice that God has a purpose for you, even if you never know what it is and never get your dreams fulfilled. (And also know, in the Life to Come, your dreams will be more than fulfilled.)

Be faithful.

Yeshua the Conquering Messiah, or the Suffering Servant

2011-07-28T09:49:00.002-05:00

Yeshua, Jesus, from the time he was an infant, was raised in a culture that expected the Coming One, the Anointed One, the Messiah (Hebrew), the Christ (Greek), to be a conquering hero that would elevate the nation of Israel to the greatest power in the world, free from oppression from other nations, like Egypt fifteen centuries earlier, and like the hated Rome during Yeshua's earthly lifetime.

As a child, surely Yeshua's mother told him stories of all the special circumstances surrounding his birth, pumping his head full of ideas that he was special, more so than any other human ever born. And even if she didn't, she and those in the know surely treated him as if he was.

In this type of environment, it would be expected that little Yeshua would grow up to be confident, self-assured, ready to take on the world, able to love and be loved, happy.

But if on the other hand, that cultural expectation were not there, if the cultural expection had been more accurate, that little Yeshua would be born for the specific purpose of being arrested on trumped-up charges, beaten to near-death, and then tortured excruciatingly at the hands of a vile, sinful nation to complete death, what would his demeanor be? Would he not develop early on into an "emo" child, morose, dark, brooding, focused on death and darkness, having no emotional strength to be confident, to take on the world, to love or be loved, resigned, unmotivated?

The cultural expectation of a triumphant Messiah seems to have served at least two purposes:

1) It kept Satan distracted from seeing the real plan,

and

2) It provided an environment for Yeshua to develop into the man needed for the job.

Why We Don't Get Involved in Politics

2011-07-28T09:47:00.001-05:00

Thus writes American Founding Father, James Madison:

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they can not be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known and less fixed?

Paraphrased more simply:

It doesn't matter if the people have the freedom to write their own laws, if the laws they write are hard to understand or change frequently. It's not a "rule" if no one knows about it or if it changes often.

That's why most Americans don't bother with the political process; most of it is "over our heads".

A Bible Quiz

2011-06-17T15:48:00.002-05:00

So you think your pet doctrine is Biblical, eh? Can you prove it via the Biblical text?

Get the PDF-formatted test here.

"God is No Respecter of Persons", out of context

2011-06-14T01:07:00.004-05:00

I've heard on multiple occasions that miraculous workings from God can not take place in the modern day because God is not a respecter of persons, and if He gave a miraculous power to you but not to me, then that would make Him a respecter of persons.

This argument has never held water with me, for two reasons:

1) If it's true in the 21st century, it was true in the first century. But in the first century, not everyone had miraculous gifts. As Paul writes in Romans 12:

^{HCSB Rom 12:6} According to the grace given to us, we have different gifts: If prophecy, use it according to the standard of faith; ⁷ if service, in service; if teaching, in teaching; ⁸ if exhorting, in exhortation; giving, with generosity; leading, with diligence; showing mercy, with cheerfulness.

In the first century, it did not make God a respecter of persons if one person was given a miraculous gift (prophecy) while another was given a non-miraculous gift (giving with generosity). Why then would the exact same arrangement in the 21st century make God a respecter of persons? Has God changed in the past 2000 years?

The text clearly states that God gives different gifts to different people, so whatever is meant by the phrase, "God is not a respecter of persons", it can not mean that God can't give one person a miraculous gift and another a non-miraculous gift. The text is black-and-white on this issue.

2) To make this argument, the phrase "God is not a respecter of persons" must be taken out of context. Here are the two relevant scriptures:

^{KJV Acts 10:34}Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: ³⁵But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

and

^{KJV 1 Peter 1:17}And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

In the Acts passage, the context is that God is not a respecter of persons in relation to who will be accepted with him.

In the 1 Peter passage, the context is that God is not a respecter of persons in relation to how a person's work will be judged.

But the argument requires a different, third, context: that God is not a respecter of persons in relation to who gets what gifts.

This third context is not in the text. The Bible simply does not say that God is not a respecter of persons in relation to who gets what gifts, and thus this doctrine is an addition to God's Word.

Whether God gives miraculous gifts today or not is an entirely different issue. But to use the argument that He does not do so because He is not a respecter of persons is to make an argument that is not in the Bible, and is actually opposed to a clear statement of the Bible.

Heal the Sick, Free the Oppressed!

2011-05-04T16:56:00.002-05:00

About a week ago I was reflecting on what a great day it was, and it struck me that just as a farmer wants to see his crops doing well, or an aquarium aficionado wants his fish happy and well, God wants his Creation happy, and that's how we're supposed to be; it's our purpose to be happy and content.

But then I realized some people have no reason to be happy: they've been unfairly imprisoned, or were born with a painful, crippling disease, or were born into cruel slavery, or are stuck in a cycle of abject poverty, etc. And I wondered how these people could ever have a hope of being happy.

And then I heard in the back of my mind the whisper:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom to the captives and recovery of the sight to the blind, to set free the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor. (Luke 4:18-19)

And it struck me: all my life, the "Gospel", the good news, has been about getting into heaven. But Yahshua's ministry is to make things right ... here!

As the Lord's body, we've been given dominion over the Earth (Gen 1:28). To have dominion, we have to understand it. And once we have that understanding, it is our ministry to eradicate disease and poverty and oppression.

The congregation needs to take an active role in raising up scientists and doctors and legal professionals and crusaders to cure cancer, diabetes, M.S., the common cold, hunger, poverty, and unbalanced power regimes.

The thought is not fully gelled in my head, but that's what I'm leaning toward lately.

Tradition-Awareness Exercise

2011-04-28T19:51:00.001-05:00

(Matthew 15:9) But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

All my life, raised in "mainstream" Texas churches of Christ, this verse has been applied against everyone but "us", because "they" don't have the truth and they "invent" doctrines. But that's really not consistent with the context of the passage.

In context, Yahshua is condemning those religious leaders who believed that all the answers were in the text of the Bible, and that it was imperative that they dig and analyze and apply their human logic to determine exactly what God meant and how the scriptures should be applied in everyday life. On the surface, this sounds like a very noble thing, but in practice, it resulted in the leaders making laws where God had not made laws. These laws eventually became known as the "Oral Law" (or "tradition of the elders", as verse 2 puts it), as opposed to the written Law from which they were derived.

It was these traditions which Yahshua condemned as vain worship.

In another place, Yahshua pointed out how that "poring over the scriptures" thinking that's how to find eternal life (John 5:39) does not result in finding that life; instead, life is found by putting your trust in Yahshua, not in the Scriptures and your own understanding of them.

We see the same principle at work in today's church. We've pored over the scriptures and dug and analyzed and applied human logic to come up with laws which we deem binding, which God never specified. For example, I suspect that some on this list would absolutely deny the validity of a church which had a sign out front that said "Church of God" instead of "Church of Christ". Did God every specify that the sign out front should say "Church of Christ"? No, but some of us have created a tradition that is now taught as doctrine. Another example is that a faithful Christian must attend worship services each of the three times a week that the local church meets. God never specified a thrice-weekly schedule, nor that Christians are unfaithful if they skip attendance "too often". But this tradition has become, in the minds of many, a doctrine. Yahshua condemned such man-made doctrines as vain worship.

If you doubt that this is really an issue in today's church, I challenge you to pick any well-established tradition at your local church and try to change it. Confusing tradition with doctrine is a natural human tendency, and we need to be wary of it in ourselves. I suggest you make it a habit to change things up at your church and in your personal life often, just to exercise your tradition-aware muscles.

Welcome to the Party! - Heb 12:23

2011-04-28T12:07:00.000-05:00

There are many wonderful aspects about the venerable King James translation, but sometimes this version just... well, it just misses it.

For example, translating baptizo as "baptize". Here the Catholic influence is seen in the translation, as the translators let their tradition get in the way of properly translating the word as "immerse", instead opting to transliterate a Greek word into English letters. The word, properly translated, is "immerse"; it is not "baptize".

Another place where the Catholic influence is seen is Acts 12:4, where the word "Easter" is introduced into the Bible. This is just out-and-out a bad translation. It's not even properly a "translation"; it's a complete fabrication. This word is "Passover", and should have been so rendered.

A Jewish influence is seen (not just in the KJV, but in most English Bibles) in that the name of God, YHWH (JHVH in older or Germanic-flavored English) is either hidden behind the man-made phrase "the LORD" or translated as the man-made combination of the consonants of YHWH with the vowels of "Lord" (~ "edonai" in Hebrew), becoming "JeHoVaH". It started out as a reverence for God's name; the scribes didn't want readers to mis-use the name. It seems a great presumption on the part of the scribes, to change God's Word after so many warnings against doing so. (Many Bibles have an introduction that explains that they have done this.) It would be like whiting out every instance of the name "Jesus" from the New Testament and printing "Christ" or "the Lord" instead, "out of reverence for the name of Jesus". How is it reverent to change God's Word from what He inspired to what we think is appropriate?

And speaking of the body of Christ, that reminds me of still another Catholic influence which is woven throughout the entire New Testament of most English Bibles: The word "church" is not in the Bible.

It's "assembly", or "congregation" or "gathering".

The word "church" derives from the Germanic "kirk" and the Latin word "circe", and from even older variants of the word from pagan sources (none of which words are in the Bible). It refers to a circle, and most often referred to the circle of worshipers gathered in pagan (specifically Druid) ceremonies.

The word in the Greek most often translated as "church" is "ekklesia", which you'll see in the names of Spanish churches often, such as "Iglesia de Christo" (Assembly of Christ).

When the New Testament was completed, there was no word "church" in the text; it was "ekklesia" (gathering, congregation, assembly). But as the ekklesia of Christ spread out over the earth, and the Catholic church developed, the Catholic church absorbed many pagan believers, along with many of the pagan concepts and terms (Christmas, Easter, the word "church", etc). By the time the original Greek New Testament was translated into Latin, and then into English many centuries later, the word "church" had become firmly entrenched in the mindset of believers of the time. Accordingly, when King James commissioned the translation of the Bible into English, resulting in the King James Bible, he set down as one of the principles of translation that older established ecclesiastical words, such as "church", were to be kept, even if it violated the text of the Bible (you can see the king's list of rules for yourself, particularly #3 which specifically mentions keeping "church" instead of using "congregation", at http://tinyurl.com/3qm76rf).

So now, 2000 years later, we read in our Bibles of "the church", which is an unBiblical concept. It is Biblically "the assembly". I recommend that you start reading "assembly" or "congregation" every time you see the word "church" in the New Testament; that's what God intended you to read. And if you wind up changing the sign out front of the assembly building to read "Assembly of Christ", you'll only be more Biblical in doing so, even though you'll be branded a change-agent or worse by your brethren.

Please do not misread me: I am not declaring the King James Version to be a bad translation, or unreliable, any more than any translation has flaws. I'm simply saying it does indeed have flaws, and should not be worshiped as perfect.

So why is this article titled, "Welcome to the Party!"? Because, once again, the King James misses it.

Here is Hebrews 12:22-23 in the KJV:

²²But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
²³To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect....

The phrase "general assembly"? The Greek is panēgurei, and means "festal gathering". Here it is translated by the Holman Christian Standard Bible:

²² Instead, you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God (the heavenly Jerusalem), to myriads of angels in festive gathering, ²³ to the assembly of the firstborn whose names have been written in heaven, to God who is the judge of all, to the spirits of righteous people made perfect....

If you're a believer, then the welcome is to you: Welcome to the party!

The Denominational Church

2011-04-26T16:26:00.001-05:00

Written a couple of years ago on the Church_Of_Christ Yahoo!Groups email list.

===

dan best wrote:

To Shawn

You said,
"Contrary to popular belief, the Messiah’s ekklesia is inclusive of what some refer to as “denominations".
How did you determine this? This is a question that has been debated for many years. Since there are no mention of denominations or its sub groups in the New Testament it seems to me that this is an unanswerable question from God at this time. Now it is evident to me that a disciple can be considered by God as a member of the ekklesia without any involvement in denominations or their sub group.

Kent replied:

According to merriam-webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denomination), the definition of "denomination" is:

1: an act of denominating
2: a value or size of a series of values or sizes (as of money)
3: name, designation ; especially : a general name for a category
4: a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices

Looking especially at definition #3, we see the church leaders in Acts 21 specifying two categories of members of the Messiah's ekklesia using general names:

1) "Jews ... who have believed" - verse 20
2) "Gentiles who have believed" - verse 25

Furthermore, each group had its own distinctive set of beliefs and practices: the Jews were "zealous for the law" (v. 20), whereas the Gentiles had "no greater burden [concerning the law] ... than [a few] necessary things" (15:28 & 21:25).

Take a synagogue of Jewish Christians from the mid-first century and a Gentile assembly from the same time period, and plop them down side-by-side on Main Street USA, and I daresay that although both wore the name "Ekklesia of the Messiah" on the Sign Out Front, everyone would refer to the two groups as different denominations. Even if you don't apply the term "denomination" to these groups, they are definitely "sub groups" within the church.

Furthermore, we have a very clear-cut case of "denominations" in 1 Cor 1:10ff; Paul did not approve of these denominational divisions, but he did testify to their existence, and considered their factional members as "brothers" and "God's church" and "saints".

So it seems to me that there IS mention of denominations or sub-groups of the church in the New Testament, sometimes approved and sometimes not, depending on the circumstances.

My two cents.

Inspiration

2011-04-26T15:29:00.002-05:00

We tend to make a big deal out of the idea that the Scriptures are "breathed-out" by God, but forget that the word "inspire" doesn't necessarily mean "breathed-out", but rather may mean "breathed-out and breathed-in".

When God blew into Adam's lifeless form, He breathed out, but at the same time caused Adam to breathe in.

Likewise with the Scriptures: He has breathed them out, but His Spirit gives us understanding as we breathe them in (1 Cor 2:12ff).

Dressed in Light

2011-04-26T14:42:00.002-05:00

On the Church_of_Christ Yahoo!Group from several years ago:

billysh226 wrote:

In the first place Adam wasn't born,he was created.Adam became corrupt when he died spiritually by his disobedience. That's why God made the first blood sacrafice and clothed them with animal skins{Gen.3:21}.

Kent responds:

Whereas I certainly do not dispute this claim that God killed [an] animal[s] and clothed Adam and Eve with animal skins, for that seems to me to make the best sense of the passage, it's good to realize that's not what the text says.

The text does not mention the killing of animals at all. Nor does it say that the skins came from animals.

If I had to offer any other hypothesis than the one billysh226 makes above, and which most of us have believed all our lives, I would suggest that perhaps before the Fall, Adam and Eve were dressed in light, much like Jesus and Elijah and Moses were dressed in light on the Mount of Transfiguration.

Being so clothed, they were not ashamed.

However, when they sinned, their light went out, and they were ashamed of what they had become. In this hypothesis, they were not ashamed because they now associated nudity with sin; they were ashamed because they no longer fully bore the image of God, Who is Light.

It would be kind of like you as a teenager being told by Mom and Dad to not get a tattoo, and then getting drunk one night and coming home covered in tattoos. You could not hide the evidence that you had broken your parents' trust. (Not a great analogy, I know, but it's the first thought that comes to mind.)

Adam and Eve could not hide the evidence that they had broken God's one rule, and now things had changed drastically, just as He had warned them they would. If it was merely a matter of becoming aware of their nudity, they might have tried to bluff their way through by pretending all was the same as before, which would have been possible if their external appearance had not changed.

But they couldn't bluff their way if their external appearance had changed. But perhaps they could cover themselves with leaves and such, and hide the fact that underneath the leaves their lights had dimmed.

God then prepared human skin to wrap around our bodies, to fulfill the job that the light formerly did.

There are flaws with this hypothesis, and so I really don't fully subscribe to it. But I do find the idea interesting. Perhaps the glow of an expectant mother is a very dim remnant of that original light. Perhaps the encouragement to be light bearers, etc, are based on cultural reminders of once being dressed in light. Perhaps the angels of light are more reminiscent of what we looked like originally, and what we'll be like in the resurrection. Perhaps Moses' face glowed after meeting with God as as result of his cellular matrix being slightly recharged with the natural state of our bodies.

But regardless of whether this idea has merit, or some other idea might have merit, the main point I started off with, and with which I want to finish, is that the actual text says nothing about the death of an animal, or of the skins provided to Adam and Eve being from animals. That's a meaning that we've inserted into the text rather than taking out of the text.

Drop-Box Giving at Church

2011-04-26T14:31:00.003-05:00

Seen in an old post at the Yahoo!Groups Church_Of_Christ email list:

George K. Howsepian wrote:

The greatest glory to God in our giving is when we give anonymously. I've advocated this for years. The passing of plates or hats or whatever in public is coercive and glorifies the donor. We don't blow horns when we drop our donations into a plate in public but we might as well be. An alternative would be to have a drop box in a private place and allow the cheerful giver to drop in whatever he will, whenever he will. That's just my opinion.

Kent responds:

I've been thinking along these same lines for the past few years.

It seems that the widow who gave her last two cents dropped it into a drop-box. Of course, it was still possible to observe who gave what, but I suspect it was also possible to drop the money off more anonymously than our current method of passing the plate.

I've also been thinking that it's time to bring our contribution support into the 21st century. I and my friends almost never carry cash or checks; we do everything with a check-card. When I floated the idea by a few friends a year or so ago to set up an automatic debit on a year-by-year basis, they discounted the idea because it removes the weekly remembrance that we're intentionally setting aside something for the Lord. At the time, I sort of bought into their arguments. Now a year later, I don't think that's the purpose of giving. The purpose of giving is foremost and primarily to take care of the poor/needy, and secondarily to take care of local church expenses (as I understand things), not to remind me of my relationship to God.

I'm confident that Joseph the Levite did not sell a parcel of land every week to bring to the Apostles; if he can make a one-time contribution, I see no reason why I could not set up a weekly contribution once a year and then forget about it the rest of the year. The advantage is that the poor/needy and the church needs would get a more consistent gift than if I'm having to remember to write and carry a check or go to the ATM every week.

Another advantage, as you mention, is that it would cease to be coercive. I wonder how many people avoid going to church just so they don't have to avert their eyes when the plate is passed.

Combining the yearly auto-debit plan with a drop-box would be ideal, as when I have an extra 75 cents in my pocket on a Wednesday night, I might dump that into the drop-box instead of into my coin jar at home. Over a year's time, with fifteen or twenty people doing that every week, that could add up.

I might even suggest two drop-boxes at each exit instead of just one: one would be designated for the poor/needy, and one would be designated for other church expenses. After the published budgetary needs are met per period, then anything in one or the other box would go specifically to that area so designated. (In other words, if the preacher's budgeted salary payment is $5 short, and there's $10 in the poor/needy box, then $5 would come out of the poor/needy to meet the published budgetary need, and then the remaining $5 would go to where it's designated. Of course, this policy would need to be clearly published at each drop box.) I think this would encourage more people to give, because they could be more confident that it's going to help some widow with medical bills instead of paying off the stained-glass window repair, and then the church might actually have the funding necessary to do its job of
helping the needy instead of relying on Good Will and the government to do its job.

Revisiting "Which NT Church"?, Part 2

2011-04-26T14:20:00.002-05:00

heb12347 wrote:

To presume that Restoration has anything to do with cultural or local features misses the point altogether (and appears to be a dodge - not an accusation, just an impression). Restoration has to do with those features that are of age-lasting and spiritual significance: the plan of salvation, worship that is in spirit and truth (matters that are identified as "musts").

Kent responds:

Ah, but now you've moved into the realm of "picking and choosing":

"Hmm, we don't do 'baptism for the dead', so we'll put it in the non-must category. Oh, and miraculous gifts also, they need to go into the non-age-lasting category. Let's see, saving up every Sunday to help Christians in famine, let's make that into an age-lasting and spiritually-significant "must", but let's change it from a one-time famine-relief effort to on-going local church support. And kneeling in prayer is obviously a cultural thing, so we can dispense with that, but, oh, that guy that proved his humility by bowing his head in prayer? Let's keep that. Yeah, that's spiritually significant."

In addressing the question of restoring the New Testament church, the question remains valid: "Which NT church?"

My point is that the term "NT church" is ill-defined. All my life we have tossed around the phrase with the meaning that there was only one church described in the New Testament (and gave Eph 4:4 and others as proof text), and then went about doing the sort of picking-and-choosing as above to define and defend a particular version of the NT church.

I'm all in favor of restoring the age-lasting and spiritually-significant features of the NT church; I just think we need to be wary of our conclusions, and realize that the next person over, equally honest and truth-seeking as ourselves, may find an entirely different church in the New Testament than what we find.

In other words, my point is that the NT church may not always "look like" the church we define and defend as the NT church. If an all-Jew church moved in next door to our assembly building, and they put a Sign Out Front that said Church Of Christ, and they used Hebrew phrases and incense and observed Passover (with a Christian meaning to it) and woreprayer shawls and yarmulkes, most of us would dismiss them as being something other than a true "Church of Christ". But Paul wouldn't have. And neither would God. I daresay that if Jesus came to visit us before his next return, he'd be more comfortable going to church there than in our building, not because that is more "right" than our version, but because it's more in line with the culture he knew as a kid.

Let's be careful about which "NT church" we define and defend, is all I'm saying.

Revisiting "Which NT Church"?

2011-04-26T14:18:00.004-05:00

A couple of years ago the following exchange took place on the Church_of_Christ Yahoo!Groups email list.

===

heb12347 wrote:

It comes down to this: is it possible to restore the NT church? That is the goal.

Kent responds:

Which NT church?

- The church of the early years that was exclusively Jewish and did things with a decidedly Jewish flavor, including worshiping in the Temple and keeping Jewish vows and celebrating Jewish holidays and insisting on circumcision and becoming fully Jewish in order to be a member of the Messiah's church?

- The church of the mid-century that was composed of a mix of Jew and Gentile, with an uneasy truce between the two cultures, which eschewed Torah-keeping for non-Jews, but had its own strange customs brought over from paganism such as Love Feasts bordering on the orgiastic and praying for the dead and glossolalia (speaking in "tongues") (which things Paul endeavored to tone down into more Christ-like versions).

Of course, if you had said "first century church" instead of "New Testament church", I could have also added:

- The church of the late-century that began to look with distrust on the Jewish community, but which nevertheless adopted much of the structured rigor from that culture and began to make laws which we don't find in the text of the New Testament, along with structures such as a tiered eldership and formal rituals in worship and special clothing for the officiators and special rote prayers and liturgies.

Please don't misunderstand me to say that I believe the goal of restoring the NT church is a bad or faulty goal; I believe it's a good goal. I just think we need to be careful about thinking that we've even properly defined what that church looks like, and even more careful about thinking we've reached our goal, which is what seems to be the perception in some of our churches.

Helping the Street Beggars

2011-04-23T11:39:00.002-05:00

So you pull up to a traffic light, and there he is, the "homeless" person begging for a hand-out.

You intuitively know it's a scam, but you worry that he really does need help. You either pull out a dollar or two and give it to him, wondering if you're contributing to drug/alcohol abuse, or you look the other way and rush through the light when it turns green, feeling guilty the whole time.

Here's a possible solution, although it would require several groups to cooperate.

A church could provide debit cards, in the denominations of $1, $2, $5, and $20. These cards could be used at participating grocery stores, Wal-Marts, filling stations, city utility/tax offices, the city's bus system, etc, but could not be used for cigarettes, alcohol, lottery tickets, etc.

These cards would then either be pre-sold or assigned to members of the public, and when you pull up next to a street beggar, you could give him one of these cards. If the card is pre-sold to you, then you'd need do nothing further. If the card is assigned, your bank account would be charged when the card is used. Any cards not used within 6 months would be considered a donation to the church's benevolence work.

(Lots of tweaks could be made to this plan, but this is the basic idea.)

Now you can give money to the beggar, knowing the money won't be used for "vice" products (I'm sure the beggars could trade/sell their cards, but it adds a level of difficulty to them to do so). And if the beggars in town get most of their donations via a card, they'll either use the cards as intended (or work around the system, unfortunately), or they would leave town to find one that donates cash instead of cards.

Would this plan (or something similar) work?

Top Evolutionist Says Creationist Critics are Right, Just Not Scientific

2011-04-12T23:35:00.001-05:00

Pro-evolution magazine Discover interviewed top evolutionist Lynn Margulis this month. It's an interesting interview. Here's a couple of excerpts.

Peter and Rosemary Grant, two evolutionary biologists [went to the Galapagos islands to do actual research rather than theory]. ... They saw lots of variation within a species, changes over time. But they never found any new species--ever.

Some of you might recall how I've argued that what is actually observed (true Science is observable, repeatable, testable) is "variation on a theme", within limits. This is what the science says; what the textbooks say is that evolution goes beyond these limits to create new forms of life. When pressed for evidence, what is trotted out is examples of "variation on a theme".

The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism. It's just that they've got nothing to offer but intelligent design or 'God did it.' They have no alternatives that are scientific.

From http://discover.coverleaf.com/discovermagazine/201104?pg=68#pg68

And You Thought Dragons Were Mythical

2011-04-08T20:00:00.003-05:00

From http://www.thefeaturedcreature.com/2010/08/this-just-in-dragons-in-avatar-are-real.html#axzz1IyyC9gjz

Now, since reptiles grow all their lives, I wonder what these would look like if their lifespans were ten times longer, like was the case for humans prior to the Great Flood of Noah.

Just Wandering Through Some of Acts

2011-04-07T09:55:00.001-05:00

As part of a conversation elsewhere:

...

In this particular case, Saul was going to the synagogues in Damascus to arrest any Jews who "belonged to the Way", in the name of the High Priest (Acts 9:1-2).

You may recall, at this time, the name "Christian" did not yet exist, and the only Christians in existence were Jews (who observed the Torah and who had not quite gotten beyond their belief that the Messiah was only for Jews and for converts to Judaism (involving circumcision for the males and immersion for both sexes).

By Acts 15, a loud segment of the Way was composed of Pharisees who insisted on this conversion process for non-Jews (Acts 15:5).

When the Good News reached Phillipi, Paul and his companions did not find a synagogue (probably because there weren't enough Jewish men in town to fulfill the minimum number required to have a synagogue, because they likely had been expelled from this Roman colony (Acts 16:12) when Emperor Claudius expelled all the Jews from Rome (Acts 18:2)). So they went to the river-side, where by tradition would be a back-up location for Jewish assemblies. There they found women, one of whom was Lydia, who after conversion, opened her house up as an assembly place (Acts 16:15,40).

In Thessalonica, the Jews who were jealous of Paul's, et al, popularity, expected to find him in Jason's house (Acts 17:1-9). They did not find Paul and his crew there, but they did find "some of the brothers" (v 6). Perhaps these brothers were some of those who had heard Paul & Silas teaching in the synagogue, who "were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas", along with God-fearing non-Jews and women (v 4).

In Corinth, Paul spent all his time reasoning (note, not "lecturing") in the synagogue (Acts 18:4) with both Jews and Greeks. When his listeners resisted, Paul left the synagogue and started meeting next door in Titius Justus' house (vv 6-7). Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, apparently went with them (v 8), and his successor, Sosthenes (who was a co-writer of 1 Cor (1 Cor 1:1)), seems to have become a believer but remained at his post as new leader of the synagogue (v 17) (or alternatively, the Christian assembly was referred to as "synagogue" (as also found in James 2:2) and had a "leader").

In Ephesus, Paul engaged in discussion (note, not "lectured") with the Jews in the synagogue (Acts 18:19), who wanted him to stay around a while. He had to leave, but Priscilla and Aquila still hung out in the synagogue, which is where they first heard the Jew Apollos teaching about Jesus (Acts 18:24-26). Later Paul returned to Ephesus, where he engaged in discussion (note, not "lectured") in the synagogue for 3 months (Acts 19:1-8), until the Jews became hardened, at which time Paul broke away and "began a new congregation" in the lecture hall of Tyrannus (v 9).

And so forth and so on.

So at least in the early days, if you wanted to find an assembly of Christ, you started at the local Jewish meeting place, and went from there.

Direct Operation of the Holy Spirit

2011-04-02T09:50:00.002-05:00

One of the controversies in the assembly of Christ is that of the nature of the Holy Spirit's operations in the present day. One side says that the Holy Spirit can directly operate on a person's heart; the other says that the Holy Spirit only operates through the text of the Word.

I just came across this passage which seems to have relevance:

^{2 Tim 2:24} The Lord's slave must not quarrel, but must be gentle to everyone, able to teach and patient, ²⁵ instructing his opponents with gentleness. Perhaps God will grant them a change of mind to know the truth.

What this says to me is that the instruction of the Word is instrumental, but that ultimately, a mind-change is a function of God's will in each instance, not of what he has said at some time or another. This seems to me to be a direct action of God on a person's heart.

Death and Sin

2011-03-25T14:14:00.003-05:00

Note in the following text:

* sin, death entered the world through one man, spread to all
* Adam's sin was different in kind from those over whom sin reigned
* Adam is a prototype of Christ
* The sin of the one (Adam) brought condemnation for all
* Likewise, life-giving justification is brought through the one (Christ) for all

^{^{HCSB Rom 5:12} Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all men, because all sinned. ¹³ In fact, sin was in the world before the law, but sin is not charged to one's account when there is no law. ¹⁴ Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam's transgression. He is a prototype of the Coming One. ¹⁵ But the gift is not like the trespass. For if by the one man's trespass the many died, how much more have the grace of God and the gift overflowed to the many by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ. ¹⁶ And the gift is not like the one man's sin, because from one sin came the judgment, resulting in condemnation, but from many trespasses came the gift, resulting in justification. ¹⁷ Since by the one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive the overflow of grace and the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
¹⁸ So then, as through one trespass there is condemnation for everyone, so also through one righteous act there is life-giving justification for everyone. ¹⁹ For just as through one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so also through the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. ²⁰ The law came along to multiply the trespass. But where sin multiplied, grace multiplied even more, ²¹ so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace will reign through righteousness, resulting in eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.}
Note in the following text:

* Death came through a man (Adam)
* The resurrection of the dead comes through a man (Christ)
* Death is the last enemy to be abolished.

^{HCSB 1 Cor 15:20} But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. ²¹ For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead also comes through a man. ²² For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. ²³ But each in his own order: Christ, the firstfruits; afterward, at His coming, the people of Christ. ²⁴ Then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father, when He abolishes all rule and all authority and power. ²⁵ For He must reign until He puts all His enemies under His feet. ²⁶ The last enemy to be abolished is death.

Note in the following text:

* It is our physical body which will be resurrected^{^{HCSB Rom 8:11} And if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead lives in you, then He who raised Christ from the dead will also bring your mortal bodies to life through His Spirit who lives in you.}

Note in the following text:

* The creation itself has been subjected to futility
* The creation itself eagerly waits, hopes to be set free from the bondage of corruption into the freedom of God's children
* The creation and ourselves groan, waiting
* We are waiting for the redemption of our bodies
* It is in this hope we are saved

^{HCSB Rom 8:18} For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is going to be revealed to us. ¹⁹ For the creation eagerly waits with anticipation for God's sons to be revealed. ²⁰ For the creation was subjected to futility—not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it—in the hope ²¹ that the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of corruption into the glorious freedom of God's children. ²² For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together with labor pains until now. ²³ And not only that, but we ourselves who have the Spirit as the firstfruits—we also groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. ²⁴ Now in this hope we were saved, ....

Note in the following text:

* It was Jesus' physical body that was raised (which could be touched, could bear scars, could eat, had flesh and bones (other passages show that the tomb was empty, and that he could be hugged, could holler to his friends, walk, cook (and apparently catch fish), change his appearance, pass through solid walls, pop into and out of existence, and fly, presumably into space, without a space-suit, and return (yet to come))

^{HCSB Luke 24:36} And as they were saying these things, He Himself stood among them. He said to them, "Peace to you!" ³⁷ But they were startled and terrified and thought they were seeing a ghost. ³⁸ "Why are you troubled?" He asked them. "And why do doubts arise in your hearts? ³⁹ Look at My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself! Touch Me and see, because a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you can see I have." ⁴⁰ Having said this, He showed them His hands and feet. ⁴¹ But while they still could not believe because of [their] joy and were amazed, He asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" ⁴² So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish, ⁴³ and He took it and ate in their presence.

Note in the following text:

* When we are resurrected/changed, we will be like Jesus

^{HCSB 1 John 3:2} Dear friends, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet been revealed. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him as He is.

Note in the following text:

* Because Adam disobeyed God ...
* the ground is cursed
* painful life-long labor will be required to gain food
* the ground will not cooperate
* food will require farming
* sweaty work will be required to gain food
* his body, formed from dust, will return to dust
* (previous verses list other changes - devolution of the serpent to a "less evolved" state; hostility between the woman and the serpent; the proto-gospel; intensified labor and anguish for mothers; a desire for a husband, even though it means being dominated by him)

^{^{HCSB Gen 3:17} And He said to Adam, "Because you listened to your wife's voice and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'Do not eat from it':
The ground is cursed because of you.
You will eat from it by means of painful labor
all the days of your life.
¹⁸ It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
¹⁹ You will eat bread by the sweat of your brow
until you return to the ground,
since you were taken from it.
For you are dust,
and you will return to dust."}

Note in the following text:

* Paul's flesh is sold into sin's power
* The entity named "Paul" does not do what he hates; it is sin living in him that does so
* Nothing good lives in Paul's flesh; he has the desire to do good, but not the ability
* There's a principle: he wants to do good, but evil is within him
* The law of sin is in the parts of his body
* His body is a body of death
* Because of his flesh, he is a slave of sin

^{HCSB Romans 7:13} Therefore, did what is good cause my death? Absolutely not! On the contrary, sin, in order to be recognized as sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that through the commandment sin might become sinful beyond measure. ¹⁴ For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am made out of flesh, sold into sin's power. ¹⁵ For I do not understand what I am doing, because I do not practice what I want to do, but I do what I hate. ¹⁶ And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree with the law that it is good. ¹⁷ So now I am no longer the one doing it, but it is sin living in me. ¹⁸ For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh. For the desire to do what is good is with me, but there is no ability to do it. ¹⁹ For I do not do the good that I want to do, but I practice the evil that I do not want to do. ²⁰ Now if I do what I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but it is the sin that lives in me. ²¹ So I discover this principle: when I want to do good, evil is with me. ²² For in my inner self I joyfully agree with God's law. ²³ But I see a different law in the parts of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and taking me prisoner to the law of sin in the parts of my body. ²⁴ What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? ²⁵ I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with my mind I myself am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh, to the law of sin.

Conclusion:

It is our physical bodies which will be resurrected and/or changed, and they will still have a physical component, although they will be different (being "physi-spiritual"). They will not be subject to death the way our current bodies are. Jesus removes that curse of death, which was brought into the world by Adam.

Adam and Jesus are unique; humans who have sinned since Adam do not sin in the same way as Adam. Adam is the prototype; Jesus is the antitype. Jesus did not have the corruption within him that the rest of humanity has, which the rest of humanity inherits from their parents, and therefore his obedience/disobedience was like that of Adam's. His obedience, and lack of corruption, freed him from natural death. His death came at the hands of an external corruption; his internal incorruptibility repaired the damage; he triumphs over death.

Jesus' father was incorruptible. That part of the male seed which passes on corruption was not passed to Jesus.

It may be that some sort of corruption is also passed on through the mother; this may be what gave Jesus his full humanity. But the incorruptibility of his father was the "dominant gene", and is the "gene" that was thus expressed in his body.

There is a type of "sin", a corruption, that lives within the corpuscles of our bodies, that is separate and apart from a person's will, but which influences the person to act against his will.

There is a type of sin, which is the action itself, which brings guilt.

Thus, there are two types of sin: 1) a sin of condition (corruption), and 2) a sin of action

We inherit the first type of sin, and commit the second type.

Jesus did not inherit the first type, nor did he commit the second type.

He was the antitype of the first Adam, free from corruption, free from guilt, able to make a conscious choice to obey or not.

The first Adam disobeyed. All humans have since, by physical means, inherited the curse he brought into the world, becoming victims of Death.

The second Adam obeyed. All humans now have access, by means of spiritual faith, to the freedom from that curse, becoming victors over Death.

Out of Context

2011-02-17T11:48:00.004-06:00

I've realized for some time that many in my religious culture take Luke 13:3,5 out of context. They use these verses as a proof-text that part of the process for individual salvation from sin/hell is to repent.

Whereas I would agree that repentance is a necessary part of the sinner's response, these two verses do not refer to individual repentance for individual salvation from sin. Rather, they refer to salvation from being killed by the ruling government.

Look at the context: Jesus had just spent a chapter speaking to his disciples about fearing God who can destroy both body and soul more than fearing human powers that can only destroy the body, and about acknowledging the Son of Man, even when they're put on trial for the same. He warned them to not worry about storing up treasures for themselves, but about being rich toward God. He continued in this vein, telling them not to worry about clothing, or food, or other earthly considerations, but rather to seek God's Kingdom. He warned that he would bring division, setting family member against family member, finishing up with a warning that they needed to recognize the signs of what's coming, and to settle up with their adversaries rather than asserting their own rights.

In this context,

...some people came and reported to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.

and his response:

...unless you change your minds, you will all perish as well!

And then he mentions:

...those 18 that the tower in Siloam fell on and killed....

and once again repeats:

unless you repent, you will all perish as well!

Notice the phrase that mentions a tower falling on people and killing them. We see a similar phrase in 1 Kings 20:30. The context is a battle; the losers run away into a walled city for refuge, and their enemies come up to the city. The result of the battle is that:

The ones who remained fled into the city of Aphek, and the wall fell on those 27,000 remaining men.

which indicates to me that the enemies outside the city knocked down the defensive wall, allowing them to get into the city and kill the remaining 27K soldiers.

I suspect that the tower in Siloam was a hold-out where rebels had taken refuge, and the Roman government had resorted to destroying the tower itself in order to destroy the uprising.

I believe Jesus is telling his disciples not to get involved in political scuffles they can't win; they have a higher calling to put their resources into fighting for the Kingdom of God, not for the Kingdom of Israel. If they don't change their minds about their political leanings, they will wind up being crushed by the government just like these other rebels. He finished off by telling a parable which essentially said that they were due to be cut down, but that God would provide them just a little more time to bear fruit which could save them.

So whereas we're told elsewhere that God-seeking people must repent "from sin", I believe this passage does not address that issue at all, but rather that Jesus is speaking here specifically to Jewish patriots about repenting from "earthly politics".

See Nail, See Hand

2011-02-17T11:21:00.003-06:00

Each letter of the Hebrew alphabet has a meaning. Looking at the letters in the name of YHWH:

Yod, Y = hand
He, H = see
Waw, W = nail

Reading the letters of the name YHWH, right-to-left as in Hebrew (HWHY), we have:

see nail see hand

But [Thomas] said to them, " "If I don't see the mark of the nails in His hands, ... I will never believe!" - John 20:25

YHWH tells us to see...

That's Not What The Text Says

2011-02-14T08:22:00.005-06:00

The Bible Study booklet we were using had a yes/no question about Ephesians chapter 4:

There are no spiritual blessings outside of Christ.

Most of the people in the study answered the question with a "no", basing their answer on Ephesians 1:3:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

I did a quick google and found this same thinking elsewhere. One writer says, "Note carefully please. There are no spiritual blessings outside of Christ."

Another is careful to distinguish between spiritual blessings and physical blessings, admitting that physical blessings can be found outside of Christ but that "This verse teaches that 'all spiritual blessings' are 'in Christ'", concluding that "All of God's spiritual blessings are in Christ; none of them are outside of Christ. Unless you are 'in Christ,' none of these spiritual blessings are available to you."

Regardless of whether the doctrine is correct or not, all of these groups are adding to the actual text; the text does not say what they claim it says.

The text says that God has blessed us with all spiritual blessings in Christ; it does not say that there are no spiritual blessings outside of Christ. That may be true, but that's not what the text says.

It's like picking up a bottle of vitamins off the shelf and telling your friend, "All the nutrients your body needs are in this vitamin." That does not mean that the other vitamins on the shelf contain none of the nutrients your body needs.

It's like saying, "This song contains all the notes of the G-Major scale". That's not the same as saying that some G-Major notes are not found in other songs.

Please don't mishear me: I'm not saying that there are spiritual blessings outside of Christ (or the converse). I'm saying that we need to not go beyond the text, and the text of Ephesians 1:3 simply says that we are blessed with all spiritual blessings in Christ; it does not say there are no spiritual blessings outside of Christ, so we should not use this text as a proof-text of that doctrine.

A Loose Translation of Isaiah 41 by RVL

2011-02-08T15:52:00.004-06:00

Ray Vander Laan has a lot to offer us Western thinkers. He teaches an approach to the Bible that incorporates an Eastern mindset, and in doing so, reveals treasures in the scriptures that tend to be hidden to us Westerners. You can get a start with his views at http://www.followtherabbi.com/.

In the introduction of a "Follow the Rabbi" presentation to a Focus on the Family group, he has the audience repeat after him a blurb from Isaiah 41. He says:

Say these words from Isaiah after me: I have placed you in this land that you may be my witnesses that the world may know that I am God. Isaiah, chapter 41.

I tried searching for this quotation from Isaiah 41 in vain, and finally realized this was not a quotation, but rather a summary. Here are some highlights to help you see his summary in the actual text:

I have placed you in this land...

WEB Isaiah 41:9 You whom I have taken hold of from the ends of the earth, and called from its corners,and said to you, ‘You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you away;’

41:10 Don’t you be afraid, for I am with you. Don’t be dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you. Yes, I will help you. Yes, I will uphold you with the right hand of my righteousness.

...that you may be my witnesses...

41:15 Behold, I have made you into a new sharp threshing instrument with teeth. You will thresh the mountains, and beat them small, and will make the hills like chaff.

41:16 You will winnow them, and the wind will carry them away, and the whirlwind will scatter them. You will rejoice in Yahweh. You will glory in the Holy One of Israel.

...that the world may know that I am God.

41:20 that they may see, know, consider, and understand together, that the hand of Yahweh has done this, and the Holy One of Israel has created it.

I think chapter 43 makes it even more clear:

I have placed you in this land...

43:5 Don’t be afraid; for I am with you. I will bring your seed from the east, and gather you from the west.

43:6 I will tell the north, ‘Give them up!’ and tell the south, ‘Don’t hold them back! Bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth—

43:7 everyone who is called by my name, and whom I have created for my glory, whom I have formed, yes, whom I have made.’”

...that you may be my witnesses that the world may know that I am God.

43:9 Let all the nations be gathered together, and let the peoples be assembled. Who among them can declare this, and show us former things? Let them bring their witnesses, that they may be justified; or let them hear, and say, “That is true.”

43:10 “You are my witnesses,” says Yahweh, “With my servant whom I have chosen; that you may know and believe me, and understand that I am he. Before me there was no God formed, neither will there be after me.

43:11 I myself am Yahweh; and besides me there is no savior.

43:12 I have declared, I have saved, and I have shown; and there was no strange god among you. Therefore you are my witnesses,” says Yahweh, “and I am God.

Other Non-Bible Material from God?

2011-01-28T14:58:00.003-06:00

Many today consider the Holy Bible to be the only written material we have from God.

But if we assume that writings from God's prophets would qualify as being "from God", then we have to consider that there were other books from God at one time, which have since been lost, such as:

the books of Samuel the Seer, Nathan the Prophet, and Gad the Seer, (1 Chron 29:29)
the book of Shemaiah the prophet (2 Chron 12:15)

If we further assume that books referenced in a positive manner by the scriptures qualify as "from God" (which I would be much more hesitant to do), then our list gets even bigger:

the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41)
the geneaologies of Iddo the Seer (2 Chron 12:15) and his story (2 Chron 13:22)
the Book of Jasher (Josh 10:13; 2 Sam 1:18)
the book of the Annals of David (1 Chron 27:24)

If we include epistles (not books), then the list grows bigger still:

at least one lost letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 5:9)
the letter to Laodicia (Col 4:16)
the unknown source of the Nazarene prophecy (Matt 2:23).

I can't help but wonder how we would receive one of these documents if the spade of archeology were to dig it up tomorrow, particularly the lost letter to the Laodicians. I suspect that most of us have a theology that wouldn't allow us to consider it as scripture, even though Paul seems to have considered it on a par with his letter to the Colossians. I think it would disturb us greatly.

The Orphan Spirit

2011-01-27T18:10:00.003-06:00

The message at Fountaingate Fellowship for the past few weeks has been "Overcoming the Orphan Spirit". Here are the characteristics of an orphan spirit according to the sermon last week:

* blames others for their condition. Learn to own your junk. (this point resonated strongly with me)

* a feeling of hopelessness. No surprise: you have no inheritance, you have no feeling of security, heritage, or destiny.

* falls into a spirit of performance. Seeking approval.

* unable to put down roots.

* always on the lookout for something bigger and better; grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

* tend to be emotionally led. Emotions are good, but what's not good is when our emotions dictate to us; we should have authority over our emotions, not the other way around.

* constantly in need of recognition.

* easily offended.

* feelings of abandonment even when one has not been abandoned.

* an attitude of "no one is gonna tell me what to do". I don't trust anybody but me.

* an attitude of "I know".

* a survivalist mentality. Always looking out for yourself because you can't trust anybody else.

* never truly comfortable in the presence of anointed spiritual fathers; a sense of inadequacy.

* reject others before they can reject you.

Ramblin' Ramblin' Ramblin' [whip-snap] Yee-Hi!

2011-01-27T10:06:00.003-06:00

No offense to any of you women, but the following thought is really beginning to gel in my mind.

When men talk, it's generally because they have a piece of information they want to communicate. Once that information has been communicated, the man is finished talking.

When women talk, it's generally because they have a need to be heard. A man starts to listen to her, expecting to hear some piece of information, but after hearing about 15 topics over the course of ten minutes, none of which have a point, and which are only loosely connected to each other, he either starts getting frustrated and wants to prompt her along with, "Get to the point", or he starts mentally drifting away (not intentionally; he just doesn't have the energy to keep paying attention to something that doesn't go anywhere).

I suspect women have the need to be heard like men have the need for sex.

I suspect that if men would learn to listen to their women for the 20 or 30 minutes the woman needs to talk, without expecting any information to be conveyed (but at least pretending to be attentive and that they get what the woman is saying), their relationships would be a lot more successful.

Again, men, your woman is not talking to tell you something; she's talking to relate to you. Don't expect a point; just listen.

This does not mean women never need to communicate information; they do. But it's sometimes hard for a man to hear her, because the signal-to-noise ratio is very low. She talks a lot, but doesn't necessarily communicate much real information.

A man can generally only pay attention to one thing at a time (he can listen to her take 20 minutes to say nothing, or he can watch the football game he's interested in, but if he tries to do both, he'll feel like he's missing out on important game time and she'll feel like he's not really listening). Because of this, it's very hard for him to pay attention to her for 20 minutes unless he intentionally tunes out distractions. But he can only do that for so long before he starts drifting, because he really needs to be thinking about what it will take to fix that plumbing leak, or how he's going to rustle up the cash to pay the electric bill, etc etc etc. A woman can think all of these things, plus fifty more, and carry on a conversation, all at the same time, but a man simply can't.

So men, when your woman needs to talk, find a way to tune out everything else, and just let her ramble, and don't expect her to have a point. She doesn't need to have a point to talk; she just needs to talk. (But sometimes she does have a point; pay especially close attention then.)

And women, when you need to talk, respect your man enough to get his attention and let him know you need him to listen, even if you're not telling him anything he needs to know. If he's in the middle of a project, tell him you need 5 or 20 minutes. Do not interrupt him for 3 minutes, then let him return to his project, then interrupt him again for 2 minutes, then let him return to his project, then interrupt him for 5 minutes, then let him return to his project, and then complain to him that he never listens to you. He can't do two things at once: He can listen to you, or he can do his project, but if he tries to do both, he's gonna fail at both, and you're both gonna wind up getting angry.

Maybe I'm wrong on all this. Maybe this has just been my experience. No offense intended. There's nothing wrong with a woman's need to talk (any more than there's anything wrong with a man's need for sex). It's just that men and women are different, and you women are so different that anytime a little clue into how y'all function enters into my brain, even though it should have been obvious to me long before now, it seems like bloggable material.

Let me know how close or how far I am from your reality; let me know if I've offended; let me apologize if I have --> I'm just a man, idiotically clueless when it comes to you women.

YHWH in the Tzitzit

2011-01-25T20:17:00.003-06:00

In Numbers 15:38 the Israelites were instructed to attach tzitzit (zeet zeet[h]), tassels, containing a blue thread, on the four corners of their outer garments.

Yahshua wore them (Matt 9:20; 14:36).

Modern day tzitzit often are composed of 10 wraps, followed by 5, then 6, then 5, which in the numerology system of the Hebrew alef-bet refers to the letters Y,H,W,H.

Why the Confederacy?

2011-01-12T08:00:00.004-06:00

I recently came across the article Five myths about why the South seceded which claimed as the first myth that the South did not secede over states' rights, but rather over slavery, claiming that

Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed to be seceding for that right. In fact, Confederates opposed states' rights -- that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery.

The author quotes some snippets from the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union to prove his case.

Notice that the author subtly morphs the argument about states' rights into an argument for the right to secede, which is not the same thing. Nonetheless, they did secede over states' rights, stating that encroachment on their rights justified withdrawal from the Federal Union. From the same document the author quotes (emphasis mine):

[South Carolina] declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union....

...

... the State of South Carolina ... should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.

...

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted.

...

We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

Referring to the election of Abraham Lincoln, an avowed enemy of slavery, the document continues:

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

So yes, slavery was the issue that triggered the secession, but the reason given was that the the North was encroaching upon the Southern states' rights, and that the South would no longer have the power of self-government.

That sounds like an issue of states' rights to me.

I think the author is correct to claim that the South seceded over the issue of slavery; but I think he's incorrect to claim that it was not over states' rights. It was both: the South seceded because it wanted to exercise self-rule, particularly in the issue of slavery.

I'm torn about supporting the Southern Confederacy: I strongly believe the states have the right to secede, but I believe slavery is an abhorrent institution, incompatible with Christianity, Humanity, and the principles and Constitution of the United States of America, and this applies to slavery of anyone of any color or nation or gender. (I'm a little softer on "limited slavery" applied to perpetrators of crimes against others.)

I believe the South was inconsistent to claim the right to self-rule for themselves but not for their slaves. Insofar as the South defended slavery, I believe the South was evil.

But, insofar as the right to self-rule, I believe the South was fully justified in dissolving their union with the Federal Government.

Returning to the article, the author mentions as his point four that the North did not attack the South to preserve slavery, but rather to preserve the Union. This is clear from Lincoln's own words:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_on_slavery

So no matter what the reasons were for the South to secede, the reasons for the war was about the North taking away the right of the South to self-rule; the South was a prisoner of the Federal Government. Thus I believe I'm justified in referring to the war as The War of Northern Aggression.

I can understand, and agree with, a war to rescue the oppressed from oppressors. Had the North fought the South to ensure freedom for all, and then to let those Southern states rule themselves thereafter, I could justify that. (It's a tricky situation, because if we're going to do that here in the Continental USA, why not a little further out, or a little further out, or on the other side of the world?) But to go to war to keep the Southern states prisoners to the Federal machine, that I can not justify.

While on this topic, let me add that I can not in good conscience say "indivisible" in the Pledge of Allegiance (although I have no problem with the rest of it, subordinate to the phrase "under God", which takes precedence). That's an outgrowth of the Northern aggression against self-rule. The United States itself is based on the right of the 13 colonies to divide itself from Mother Britain, a right which is built into the framing document of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government....

... it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I recommend you go read the Five Myths... article; it's worth consideration.

Misreading the Text

2011-01-10T09:40:00.002-06:00

I'm not a good listener, so maybe I misheard, but I think I heard the claim that Titus 2:7 says "show good works in doctrine".

I don't believe that's what it says.

Here's Titus 2:7 (KJV) and its immediate context:

⁶Young men likewise exhort to be sober minded.
⁷In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,
⁸Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.

The Ghost of Thanksgiving .......Yet to Come

2011-01-09T18:06:00.001-06:00

The following was received in an email from Winston T. Ohlhausen:

----

“Winston!!!! Come into the dining room, it’s time to eat,” Julia yelled to her husband.

"In a minute, honey, it’s a tie score,” he answered. Actually Winston wasn’t very interested in the traditional holiday football game between Detroit and Washington. Ever since the government passed the Civility in Sports Statute of 2017, outlawing tackle football for its “unseemly violence” and the “bad example it sets for the rest of the world,” Winston was far less of a football fan than he used to be. Two-hand touch wasn’t nearly as exciting.

Yet it wasn’t the game that Winston was uninterested in. It was more the thought of eating another TofuTurkey. Even though it was the best type of Veggie Meat available after the government revised the American Anti-Obesity Act of 2018, adding fowl to the list of federally-forbidden foods, (which already included potatoes, cranberry sauce and mince-meat pie), it wasn’t anything like real turkey. And ever since the government officially changed the name of “Thanksgiving Day” to “A National Day of Substantial Regret” in 2020, to officially acknowledge the Pilgrims’ historically brutal treatment of Native Americans, the holiday had lost a lot of its luster.

Eating in the dining room was also a bit daunting. The unearthly gleam of government-mandated fluorescent light bulbs made the Tofu Turkey look even weirder than it actually was, and the room was always cold. Ever since Congress passed the Power Conservation Act of 2016, mandating all thermostats—which were monitored and controlled by the electric company — be kept at 68 degrees, every room on the north side of the house was barely tolerable throughout the entire winter.

Still, it was good getting together with family. Or at least most of the family. Winston missed his mother, who passed on in October, when she had used up her legal allotment of live-saving medical treatment. He had had many heated conversations with the Regional Health Consortium, spawned when the private insurance market finally went bankrupt, and everyone was forced into the government health care program. And though he demanded she be kept on her treatment, it was a futile effort. “The RHC’s resources are limited,” explained the government bureaucrat Winston spoke with on the phone. “Your mother received all the benefits to which she was entitled. I’m sorry for your loss.”

Ed couldn’t make it either. He had forgotten to plug in his electric car last night, the only kind available after the Anti-Fossil Fuel Bill of 2021 outlawed the use of the combustion engines — for everyone but government officials. The fifty mile round trip was about ten miles too far, and Ed didn’t want to spend a frosty night on the road somewhere between here and there.

Thankfully, Winston’s brother, John, and his wife were flying in. Winston made sure that the dining room chairs had extra cushions for the occasion. No one complained more than John about the pain of sitting down so soon after the government - mandated cavity searches at airports, which severely aggravated his hemorrhoids.

Ever since a terrorist successfully smuggled a cavity bomb onto a jetliner, the TSA told Americans the added “inconvenience” was an “absolute necessity” in order to stay “one step ahead of the terrorists.” Winston’s own body had grown accustomed to such probing ever since the government expanded their scope to just about anywhere a crowd gathered, via Anti-Profiling Act of 2022. That law made it a crime to single out any group or individual for “unequal scrutiny,” even when probable cause was involved. Thus, cavity searches at malls, train stations, bus depots, etc., etc., had become almost routine. Almost.

The Supreme Court is reviewing the statute, but most Americans expect a Court composed of six progressives and three conservatives to leave the law intact. “A living Constitution is extremely flexible,” said the Court’s eldest member, Elena Kagan. “Europe has had laws like this one for years. We should learn from their example,” she added.

Winston’s thoughts turned to his own children. He got along fairly well with his 12-year-old daughter, Brittany, mostly because she ignored him. Winston had long ago surrendered to the idea that she could text anyone at any time, even during Substantial Regret Dinner. Their only real confrontation had occurred when he limited her to 50,000 texts a month, explaining that was all he could afford. She whined for a week, but got over it.

His 16-year-old son, Jason, was another matter altogether. Perhaps it was the constant bombarding he got in public school that global warming, the bird flu, terrorism or any of a number of other calamities were “just around the corner,” but Jason had developed a kind of nihilistic attitude that ranged between simmering surliness and outright hostility. It didn’t help that Jason had reported his father to the police for smoking a cigarette in the house, an act made criminal by the Smoking Control Statute of 2018, which outlawed smoking anywhere within 500 feet of another human being. Winston paid the $5,000 fine, which might have been considered excessive before the American dollar became virtually worthless as a result of QE13. The latest round of quantitative easing the federal government initiated was, once again, to “spur economic growth.” This time they promised to push unemployment below its years-long rate of 18%, but Winston was not particularly hopeful.

Yet the family had a lot for which to be thankful, Winston thought, before remembering it was a Day of Substantial Regret. At least he had his memories. He felt a twinge of sadness when he realized his children would never know what life was like in the Good Old Days, long before government promises to make life “fair for everyone” realized their full potential. Winston, like so many of his fellow Americans, never realized how much things could change when they didn’t happen all at once, but little by little, so people could get used to them.

He wondered what might have happened if the public had stood up while there was still time, maybe back around 2009, when all the real nonsense began. “Maybe we wouldn’t be where we are today if we’d just said ‘enough is enough’ when we had the chance,” he thought.

Maybe so, Winston. Maybe so.

Reading Carefully

2011-01-03T14:43:00.002-06:00

The question in the Bible Class Study Workbook asked if Paul wanted to terrify the Corinthians with his letters (with 2 Cor 10:9 as the "proof text").

I'd like to emphasize that

I don't want to seem as though I am trying to terrify you with my letters

is not the same as

I don't want to terrify you with my letters.

And while I'm on the topic of misreading the text,

Now I consider myself in no way inferior to the "super-apostles"

is not the same as

Now I'm in no way inferior to the "super-apostles"

so 2 Cor 11:5 should not be used as a proof-text for the latter (although the point can be proof-texted by citing 2 Cor 12:11).

The Gifting of the Holy Spirit

2011-01-01T16:23:00.009-06:00

Now there are different gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 There are different ministries, but the same Lord. 6 And there are different activities, but the same God is active in everyone and everything. 7 A manifestation of the Spirit is given to each person to produce what is beneficial:

...

11 But one and the same Spirit is active in all these, distributing to each one as He wills.

As I see it, there are four ways one may receive the Holy Spirit:

1 - Talents

^{HCSB(m) Ex 35:30} Moses then said to the Israelites: "Look, YHWH has appointed by name Bezalel son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah. 31 He has filled him with God's Spirit, with wisdom, understanding, and ability in every kind of craft 32 to design artistic works in gold, silver, and bronze, 33 to cut gemstones for mounting, and to carve wood for work in every kind of artistic craft. 34 He has also given both him and Oholiab son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan, [the ability] to teach [others]. 35 He has filled them with skill to do all the work of a gem cutter; a designer; an embroiderer in blue, purple, and scarlet yarn and fine linen; and a weaver. They can do every kind of craft and design artistic designs.

From this passage, we can see that one way a person may have God's Spirit and His gifts is via innate, natural abilities from birth, which are honed through years of study and practice. We would tend to call these capabilities "talents" or "skills".

The indwelling of God's Spirit does not necessarily entail the "miraculous".

The Spirit of YHWH took control of David after he was anointed as a young man by Samuel to some day be king (1 Sam 16:13), but again, we don't see any special outward manifestation of this in the form of miraculous activity.

When Samson was arrested and tied up to be handed over to the Philistines, the Spirit of YHWH took control of him and allowed him to break the bonds and kill a thousand men with a donkey's jawbone (Judges 15:14ff). Some people would see this manifestation and call it a "miracle"; others would see it and call it "an amazing feat of human strength". But for those in the latter group, the Bible says that it was due to God's Spirit working through Samson.

But in all these cases, what the Bible describes as being filled with or controlled by the Holy Spirit seems to be what we might call "talented" or "naturally gifted".

2 - Autonomous Pouring Out

Sometimes God pours out his Spirit on people in whatever measure He desires, when He desires. This is what happened with Saul when he went chasing after David to kill him; the Spirit of God came on him, and Saul stripped naked and prophesied as a result (1 Sam 19:23ff). It's interesting to note that Isaiah also spent three years walking around naked while prophesying (Isa 20:1ff).

In Acts 2, the Jewish disciples of Jesus were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in tongues. This again happened with Gentiles on the verge of their conversion to Christianity (Acts 10).

Note that in these cases, God simply "grabs" the person and fills him with the Holy Spirit, and some sort of prophecy or tongue-speaking, etc, is the result.

Peter says in Acts 2 that the event recorded there is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Joel 2, in which God promises to pour out His Spirit on all humanity (not just the twelve closest followers of Jesus), male and female, old and young, and that it would result in prophecy, visions, dreams, wonders, and signs.

3 - Dispensed by Another Human Having Dispensing Ability

Sometimes the Holy Spirit is dispensed by another human. After Jesus' resurrection, he breathed on his 11 remaining closest disciples and told them, "Receive the Holy Spirit" (John 20:22). Earlier he had given them "authority over unclean spirits, to drive them out and to heal every disease and sickness" (Matt 10:1). This miraculous measure of the Holy Spirit appears to have been temporary, in effect while the disciples were carrying out their assigned mission.

In Acts 8:14ff, the new converts did not receive the Holy Spirit until Peter and John laid their hands on them.

Timothy received a gift via the laying on of hands (1 Tim 4:14).

The church leaders laid their hands on Saul and Barnabas, and shortly thereafter Saul/Paul manifested miraculous abilities (Acts 13:2ff).

4 - Desired and Requested

The Corinthians were told to "desire spiritual gifts" (1 Cor 14:1), and to be eager to prophesy (14:39) and that they should pray for gifts (14:13). He also said that a "manifestation of the Spirit is given to each person to produce what is beneficial" (12:7), as the Holy Spirit wills (12:11).

Note that Paul makes a distinction between this "measure" of the Holy Spirit and the measure given to a specially-sent ambassador: he says that the Holy Spirit gives this measure to "each person", but to himself was given the ability to perform the "signs of an apostle", with "wonders and miracles" (2 Cor 12:12). But both "measures" manifest themselves in what we would call "miraculous" activity.

We can see this distinction in Acts 21; Paul exhibits various miraculous powers in his journeys, but on this occasion, it required a prophet (Agabus) with a more "mundane" indwelling to foretell Paul's fate (Acts 21:10ff). (We've heard from Agabus and his prophetic ability before - Acts 11:27ff.)

Conclusion

Of these four methods, only one of them is no longer available to us. When the apostles died out, there was no longer any Biblically-approved human dispenser of the Holy Spirit.

However, the other three methods are still available to us:

* we can still be born with innate talents that we can hone to God's glory;

* if God so desires, He can autonomously grant someone with his Holy Spirit and its manifestations; and

* we can still pray for God's Spiritual gifting, which He may dispense according to His will.

(Note that in none of these methods was the Spirit of God conveyed as mere data/information which could be stored in a book. For those who claim that the Holy Spirit only indwells modern-day Christians via the Bible, let me mention Satan. I'm confident that Satan knows every word of the Bible, much better than any living Christian; what makes him different from Bible-knowing Christians? It's not merely the existence of God's Word in the person's mind. Nor would it seem to be faith, as James tells us that the demons believe. So whatever the indwelling of the Spirit is, it is not merely the storage in a person's head/heart of data between the pages of God's book. The indwelling of God's Spirit is something more than what the text of the Bible by itself can accomplish, or Satan, who has the text of the Bible in his head, would have God's Spirit.)

At this point, someone from my religious background will object that miracles have ceased. They base this argument on three points:

1) Holy Spirit-provided miraculous powers were given to the Apostles only, and from there were able to be passed on through the laying on of their hands; once the Apostles died out, this transmission capability ceased.

We've seen above that this is only one method of four wherein such powers were acquired. We've also seen that Holy Spirit-provided miraculous powers were not prophesied to be given only to the Apostles, but to all of humanity.

2) The purpose for miracles, to confirm the word, has been fulfilled.

Whereas miracles did indeed confirm the word, the Biblical text never makes the claim that this is the only purpose of miracles; this is a claim made by humans, not by the Biblical text. Furthermore, Paul explicitly says that tongues were a sign for the unbelievers (who would need the word confirmed), but that prophecy was a sign for the believers (who had already accepted the word), for their edification (1 Cor 14:22ff).

John 9 implies that miracles also serve to demonstrate God's workings (v 3) and to open stubbornly-closed eyes (v 39). Acts 4 indicates that the lame man was healed as a good deed (v 9) and to spur people to give glory to God (v 22).

The context of 1 Corinthians 14 says that at least one purpose of miraculous workings is to teach (v 19), not "to confirm", but to teach something that is freshly revealed (v 30), so that everyone can learn and be encouraged (v 31), in order to build up the church (v 26).

So whereas "a" purpose of miracles was to confirm the word, it was not the only purpose.

Even so, if God so desires to confirm his written word in the modern day with miracles, that's His prerogative. If we consider the Bible as a single witness (as opposed to a collection of multiple witnesses), then a second witness is needed, for by the mouths of two or three witnesses shall a thing be established. It might be argued that since much Biblical doctrine is derived from patching various texts together, such a doctrine is established by a single witness (no one witness in the collection of witnesses by itself supporting the doctrine), and therefore needs a second witness to fully establish the doctrine.

3) 1 Cor 13 teaches that miraculous powers have come to an end.

Here's the relevant text:

^{HCSB 1 Cor 13:8} Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for languages, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when the perfect comes, the partial will come to an end. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put aside childish things. 12 For now we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, as I am fully known. 13 Now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love.

The argument goes that prophecy and languages and knowledge were partial when Paul wrote this, but once all the text of the New Testament had been written, the prophecy, languages, and knowledge God intended to give to humanity was complete, therefore prophecy, languages, and knowledge (and other miraculous powers) came to an end. The argument is further developed by appealing to James 1:25 which refers to the "perfect law of liberty" and to Jude 3 which says the faith was delivered once for all to the saints, and piecing these verses together to form a jigsaw-puzzle theology that the New Testament is the "perfect law of liberty" which, being "perfect" means it is complete, therefore the "partial" revelation from God has now become perfect/complete, meaning that prophecy, languages, and knowledge have ceased. It doesn't seem convincing that the "perfect" in 1 Cor 13:10 is referring to the "perfect law of liberty" in James 1:25. Nor does it seem convincing that the "perfect law of liberty" in James 1:25 refers to the New Testament as a completed document. The logical steps necessary for this argument seem to me to rely on definitions stretched out of context.

When we look only at 1 Cor 13, notice that the text does not say that miracles will cease when the New Testament is completed. It says that when the partial (whatever it is, prophecy, knowledge, etc) is perfected, it's no longer partial. It does not say that this perfection would occur with the death of the last apostle, or the writing of the last New Testament book. In fact, Paul clearly states that when the "perfect" arrives, he will know fully as he is fully known. I for one, do not fully know, so if the test applied to him applies to me also, then the "perfect" has not yet arrived.

In fact, in another place, Paul writes:

^{HCSB Eph 4:11} And He personally gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 for the training of the saints in the work of ministry, to build up the body of Christ, 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of God's Son, [growing] into a mature man with a stature measured by Christ's fullness. 14 Then we will no longer be little children, tossed by the waves and blown around by every wind of teaching, by human cunning with cleverness in the techniques of deceit.

Unless the 21st century church has attained, not merely a greater unity in the faith and knowledge of God's Son than did the church of Paul's day, but a complete unity, and unless we've reached maturity unlike them, then we still need apostles and prophets and evangelists and pastors and teachers. So have we reached complete maturity? Have we reached unity?

In short, the idea that 1 Cor 13 says that miracles have ceased is a stretch. The most one can say is that it teaches that prophecies and the like will someday cease, but that when it happens, we'll "know fully". I, for one, don't yet know fully.

So in final summation: God gives various spiritual gifts to whom He desires, when He desires, for whatever reasons He desires, resulting in various manifestations, via at least four methods, and the idea that He does not do so in the present day is based on biased interpretations of the text rather than on clear statements to that effect. I would recommend caution in quenching the Spirit on the basis of fallible human reasoning rather than on clear Biblical teaching.

Careful with that Proof-Texting

2010-12-27T10:55:00.003-06:00

I'm accustomed to hearing a phrase similar to this: "We have to go by what the Bible says, not what man says."

And I agree that this is completely correct. But many in the Scripture-honoring crowd have adopted a mentality that they know what the Bible says, and they often have their favorite pet verses to "prove" their understanding. The problem with this is that sometimes an equally valid proof-text can be found for the other side.

For example, in a workbook for a Bible class is this question: "Did Paul desire the Corinthians' help to preach the gospel beyond them?"

And an answer given was "yes", and the proof-text for this answer was 2 Cor 10:15-16:

But we have the hope that as your faith increases, our area [of ministry] will be greatly enlarged, so that we may preach the gospel to the regions beyond you....

This indicates that Paul wanted the faith of the Corinthians to mature to the point where they could help spread the gospel beyond them.

But on the other hand, there is this proof-text in 2 Cor 11:6-9:

Was it a sin for me to lower myself in order to elevate you by preaching the gospel of God to you free of charge? I robbed other churches by receiving support from them so as to serve you. And when I was with you and needed something, I was not a burden to anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied what I needed. I have kept myself from being a burden to you in any way, and will continue to do so.

Here is a clear indication that Paul served them free of charge, without being a burden to them, and will continue to not be a burden to them.

So here the answer to the original question would be "no".

So which is it? Both sides have a proof-text. Both sides can claim that their side is going by what the Bible says and not what man says.

What's my point?

Just because you have a proof-text that "proves" your point, it may not actually prove your point. So perhaps we should be a little more cautious in claiming that we have the Truth because we go by the Bible.

WARNING: RATED X MATERIAL

2010-12-13T09:06:00.002-06:00

Okay folks, this is really in the Bible:

[T]here were two women, daughters of the same mother, who acted like prostitutes in Egypt, behaving promiscuously in their youth. Their breasts were fondled there, and their virgin nipples caressed. The older one was named Oholah, and her sister was Oholibah. They became Mine and gave birth to sons and daughters. As for their names, Oholah represents Samaria and Oholibah represents Jerusalem.

"Oholah acted like a prostitute even though she was Mine. She lusted after her lovers, the Assyrians: warriors dressed in blue, governors and prefects, all of them desirable young men, horsemen riding on steeds. She offered her sexual favors to them; all of them were the elite of Assyria. She defiled herself with all those she lusted after and with all their idols. She didn't give up her promiscuity that began in Egypt, when men slept with her in her youth, caressed her virgin nipples, and poured out their lust on her. Therefore, I handed her over to her lovers, the Assyrians she lusted for. They exposed her nakedness, seized her sons and daughters, and killed her with the sword. Since they executed judgment against her, she became notorious among women.

"Now her sister Oholibah saw [this], but she was [even] more depraved in her lust than Oholah, and made her promiscuous acts worse than those of her sister. She lusted after the Assyrians: governors and prefects, warriors splendidly dressed, horsemen riding on steeds, all of them desirable young men. And I saw that she had defiled herself; both of them [had taken] the same path. But she increased her promiscuity when she saw male figures carved on the wall, images of the Chaldeans, engraved in vermilion, wearing belts on their waists and flowing turbans on their heads; all of them looked like officers, a depiction of the Babylonians in Chaldea, the land of their birth. At the sight of them she lusted after them and sent messengers to them in Chaldea. Then the Babylonians came to her, to the bed of love, and defiled her with their lust. But after she was defiled by them, she turned away from them in disgust. When she flaunted her promiscuity and exposed her nakedness, I turned away from her in disgust just as I turned away from her sister. Yet she multiplied her acts of promiscuity, remembering the days of her youth when she acted like a prostitute in the land of Egypt and lusted after their lovers, whose sexual members were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of stallions. So you revisited the indecency of your youth, when the Egyptians caressed your nipples to enjoy your youthful breasts.

This is from Ezekiel 23 (in the HCSB version). I'm especially ... intrigued? ... by the reference to pornography carvings in the wall, men "pouring out their lust" on the woman, and donkey-sized penises with stallion-sized ejaculations.

Whew!

Who knew the Bible was so ... gritty?

YHWH in Early USA

2010-12-09T13:29:00.003-06:00

What I've read/heard is that on the day of George Washington's Presidential Inauguration, a Bible could not be found, so he and both houses of Congress up-and-went across the street to St. Paul's Chapel, and that Washington worshiped at this assembly for two years. You can google for more info, but as an example of what you'll find, here's a blurb from http://www.nyc-architecture.com/LM/LM065.htm:

A special Thanksgiving service was certainly held on April 30, 1789 in honor of Washington’s inauguration. Following the ceremony at Federal Hall, in which nobody remembered to bring a Bible, the new President and both houses of Congress walked to St. Paul’s. President George Washington, in the two years in which New York was the national capital, regularly attended St. Paul’s and his pew in the north aisle is preserved as a tourist attraction.

What's more fascinating to me is that the Tetragrammaton, the Four Letters, the Hashem, the Name, "YHWH", is part of the decor of this place. Here are two links to two different pictures (I'm not posting them as I don't have the rights to them, thus I'm merely linking to them).

In this first link, note the two tablets containing the Ten Commandments near the center of the picture, at the bottom of the center pane of the window; straight up from that, at the top of the window's outer arch, is the decoration containing the Tetragrammaton. If you let your browser show the image at full-size, you can actually see a blurry image of the Tetragrammaton.

http://www.feastofmusic.com/.a/6a00d8341c4fb353ef0128766aa466970c-pi

And here is a black-and-white close-up of that decoration:
http://www.nyc-architecture.com/LM/065D.jpg

(from http://www.nyc-architecture.com/LM/LM065.htm)

Sunday-Go-To-Meetin' Clothing

2010-10-18T13:35:00.003-05:00

On one of my email lists, someone asked a question about what type of clothing we should wear when we attend church. Should it be our best, as some argue, or whatever we are comfortable in, as others would argue? The response below, by Glenn, is much heavier on scripture quotations than most responses, and I found it interesting enough to reprint here (with Glenn's permission).

What does the scripture say?

Ps 35:13 - But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth; I humbled my soul with fasting, And my prayer kept returning to my bosom.

Sackcloth, which most of us have probably never worn, is clothing appropriate to mourning. Sackcloth is like canvas. Most Americans wear silk or fine linen suits and dresses to funerals. We seem to have this one backwards, if God's word means anything to us.

Ps 45:13 - The King's daughter is all glorious within; Her clothing is interwoven with gold.

Fine clothing, what we would call dress-up clothing like suits and flowing dresses, are for royalty who are in the halls of the King. We are a royal priesthood, but priests wore simple linen, nothing fancy. And it was everyday clothing for them.

Ps 69:11 - When I made sackcloth my clothing, I became a byword to them.

Read this Psalm. It was haughtiness that made the psalmist a byword when he wore sackcloth. It was not because his clothing was simple or rough or un-dressy.

Pr 27:26 - The lambs will be for your clothing, And the goats will bring the price of a field,

Clothing is a gift from God to be appreciated. Making it a status symbol is accepting the world's view. We are to accept God's view instead. God does not see clothing as a status symbol...and neither should we.

Pr 31:22 - She makes coverings for herself; Her clothing is fine linen and purple.

If you can afford fine clothing, there is nothing wrong with wearing it. But there is no special standing before God because of the clothing. Even in these verses the emphasis is on the ability of the woman, not some kind of obligation to dress up.

Pr 31:25 - Strength and dignity are her clothing, And she smiles at the future.

Strength and dignity do not require a tie and suit, nor do they come as accessories. Simple clothing worn with strength and dignity makes whatever you are wearing fit for a King.

Mt 6:25 - "For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?

Jesus seemed to think that it is how you live and NOT what you wear that is important. If we begin to think differently, then we are NOT following Jesus.

Mt 6:28 - "And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin,

Jesus put clothing in its rightful place - as a blessing from the same Creator who adorns the flowers of the field. Clothing is not something to get hung up on or worry about. Remember this - the beauty of a flower is in what the flower is. If a person IS a Christian, that is where their true beauty can be seen. If they are NOT a Christian, no finery of clothing is going to change that.

Mt 6:31 - "Do not worry then, saying, `What will we eat?' or `What will we drink?' or `What will we wear for clothing?'

If anyone needs a word direct from the mouth of Jesus on what to wear, this is it. Wear what you have on. Don't sweat what you wear. It is what is within you that makes you presentable or not. Clothing is meant as a covering for nakedness, no more and no less.

Mt 7:15 - "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

People who sweat the details of clothing miss seeing who others really are. Jesus tells us that anybody can wear any clothing, but it is who they are inside that counts. Don't be fooled by clothing that fits your idea of what looks good.

Mt 11:8 - "But what did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Those who wear soft clothing are in kings' palaces!

Fine clothing is all well and good, but if that is how you discern the value of a person, you are not seeing things the way Jesus teaches His disciples to see things. Why is this so hard?

Lu 7:25 - "But what did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Those who are splendidly clothed and live in luxury are found in royal palaces!

Fine clothes are for wearing to palaces. Maybe that is why folks spend so much on big assembly halls - so they can feel like they are in a palace. I would rather be near a lake, sitting on a beach with Jesus and eating the breakfast He just prepared for us (a la John 21) than sitting in a palace hoping He'll show up. If they had been in fine clothes, they could not have gone fishing and would have missed the opportunity for that intimate breakfast. And yet what they wore was totally appropriate to gather together with Jesus. Looks like fishing gear is appropriate for assemblies, eh? The important thing is they were together and they were with Jesus. The clothing is not even mentioned.

Lu 9:29 - And while He was praying, the appearance of His face became different, and His clothing became white and gleaming.

Looks like praying makes whatever you wear look amazing. Seems to me that it matters more what we are doing than what we are wearing.

Lu 12:23 - "For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing.

Does it get any more plain than this?

Joh 19:24 - So they said to one another, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, to decide whose it shall be"; this was to fulfill the Scripture: "THEY DIVIDED MY OUTER GARMENTS AMONG THEM, AND FOR MY CLOTHING THEY CAST LOTS."

Looks like the only necessary consideration, even to these unbelieving Gentiles, was taking care of the clothing and not tearing it up. Reminds me of my Mom telling me not to get dirty before going to Grandma's house. We wore clothes for running and jumping and hugging Grandma, just so long as they were clean and not torn up. And I never wore a suit and tie to Grandma's house.

1Ti 2:9 - Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments,

Amazing, isn't it, how we seem to have forgotten all about Paul's admonition AGAINST fine clothing? In Paul's view, if it was proper, it was modest and discreet clothing, NOT finery, NOT showy, NOT exceptional, and NOT adorned with gold or pearls or costly materials.

Jas 2:15 - If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food,

The only thing to care about is NOT am I wearing my best clothing. The thing to care about is whether all the brothers and sisters have something to wear to cover their nakedness - and don't tempt them with the finery Paul admonishes us to avoid! Clothing is meant to cover nakedness modestly and discreetly.

Forget the traditions of men that have made us forget all of these words of instruction from God. Forget the world's approach to showing respect with expensive clothes. Show respect for God by making sure others have something modest and discreet to wear. Then you, too, will be clothed with strength and dignity like the worthy woman of Proverbs 31.

As the worship leader at our gathering of Christians, I often begin the call to worship with a song that you can listen to in less than five minutes at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPWq8eM4lu8. We play it sometimes and we sing it together sometimes, but mostly we mean every word of it all the time.

"Come...just as you are...come...give your heart to God...come."

The world gets hung up on clothing and all kinds of other distractions. Our gathering is about Jesus - and NOT about whether your clothes are 'good enough'. He wants your heart, He who wore a simple linen garment to cover Himself modestly and discreetly. He who wore those dusty, dirty, everyday sandals that He had just come in off a long road trip wearing through dust and mud and up hillsides and into homes to heal the sick and leave a blessing. He wants your heart, not your Guccis. Come as you are and know the peace of a shared burden and the rest of knowing you never have to walk alone again.
Blessings,

Glenn, who is wearing a fine purple Tshirt and fuzzy black stretch pants and tennis shoes as he shares what the Spirit is saying to all who will listen ...

(Don't) Follow the Leader

2010-09-23T07:05:00.002-05:00

The nation of Israel was in its glory days about 1000 B.C. under the kingship of David and Solomon, but one king later, the nation divided into two, a Northern set of 10 tribes (aka "Israel") and a Southern set of two (aka "Judah").

Over the next couple of centuries, the leadership of the Northern Israel was particularly neglectful of living as YHWH would have them live, which eventually resulted in God using the nation of Assyria to conquer and punish Israel.

We see in the Biblical book of the Kings how the leadership of the nation leads up to this:

2 Kings 15:17ff Menahem son of Gadi became king over Israel. ... Sin for sin, he repeated the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, who led Israel into a life of sin.

2 Kings 15:23ff Pekahiah son of Menahem became king of Israel. ... In YHWH's eyes he lived an evil life. He stuck to the old sin tracks of Jeroboam son of Nebat, who led Israel into a life of sin.

2 Kings 15:27ff Pekah son of Remaliah became king of Israel in Samaria. ... In YHWH's view he lived an evil life; he didn't deviate so much as a hair's breadth from the path laid down by Jeroboam son of Nebat, who led Israel into a life of sin.

We see that King Jeroboam led Israel into a life of sin, and these three kings followed in his footsteps.

After Israel is taken into captivity, this is what God says:

The exile came about because of sin: The children of Israel sinned against YHWH, their God, who had delivered them from Egypt and the brutal oppression of Pharaoh king of Egypt. They took up with other gods, fell in with the ways of life of the pagan nations YHWH had chased off, and went along with whatever their kings did.

What I find significant here is the suggestion that if the people had not gone along with their leadership, they would not have been sent into exile from their homeland.

What does this say about following our governmental leadership?

I'm just askin'....

The Gates of Hell Shall Not Win

2010-08-27T14:34:00.004-05:00

In Judges 16:1-3, we read of how the enemies of Samson thought they had him trapped in a city, planning to kill him at daylight, but Samson just tore out the gates of the city during the night and made his escape, carrying the gates with him to the top of a local mountain.

Hold that thought.

Several hundred years later, Yahshua is at the city of Caesarea Philippi with his young disciples, who were probably embarrassed to be at such an ungodly center of smut, wondering what in the world their rabbi was thinking to bring them here. This city was to Pan-worship as the Vatican is to Roman Catholicism. It was the capital city, the center, of cult worship to the goat-god Pan.

Just outside the city, and perhaps where Yahshua was standing, was a stone slab at the entrance to a cave. From this cave flowed the headwaters of the Jordan River. (In the 19th century, an earthquake shifted the river so it no longer flows from the cave).

Pan (from who's name we get the word "pandemonium") was a fertility god who every Autumn went into this cave which served as the gateway to the underworld, where he would spend the Winter. When Springtime arrived, Pan emerged from this gateway of hell to consort with his wife, Ashtarte ("Easter"), and in copulating with her, his sperm fell to the earth as rain, making the land fertile. His followers worshiped this goat-god on this stone slab in an annual fertility orgy involving all sorts of deviations, including human-goat sex.

Hold that thought.

The word "church" seems to have its origins in one of two sources. One is the Greek word "kuriokon" ("house of the lord" - never used in the N.T., although the root, "kuriokos" - "of the lord" - is used twice: the Supper of the Lord in 1 Cor 11:20, and the Day of the Lord in Rev 1:10). The other source is the even-older Celtic dialects that eventually gave us "kirk" ("church") and "circle". In many ancient pagan religions, particularly in Europe, the gathering places were in a circular form (think Stonehenge).

In either case, both words refer to a place, not to people, but the word used in the New Testament, "ekklesia" ("called out", "assembly", "congregation"), refers to people, not a place.

When the Bible was translated into English in the 13-16th centuries, the European idea of a pagan church/circle meeting place became confused with the Biblical idea of an assembly, and our English Bibles inherited the non-Biblical term "church".

That means that when we read Matthew 16:18 in most of our English Bibles, we get a concept of a place or thing which Yahshua intended to build, rather than a congregation.

Hold that thought.

Or better yet, put all three of these thoughts together.

Yahshua is standing with his disciples near, perhaps even on, the stone slab of a pagan, hellish religion, just outside the "gate" to the realm of evil in which humanity is destined to be trapped without a savior. He's speaking to a group of kids who were well-familiar with the story of Samson, who had broken through the gates of the city, in which he would be destined to death if he had not escaped.

In this context, Yahshua stands on or near this stone slab and makes an announcement to Peter that these gates of hell will not prevent his people from being called out of their death-trap, nor prevent his people from going into the depths of hell and defeating the evil therein.

Here's what he says:

On this stone slab, I will edify the people I call out; and the gates of hell will not be strong enough to withstand their attack.

Mmm, Watermelon Juice in the Lord's Supper....

2010-08-23T09:57:00.003-05:00

All my life, my religious culture has insisted that we rely on the Bible as our only infallible source for how to live Godly lives. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is an example of the textual support for this idea:

¹⁶ All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, ¹⁷ so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Whereas this sounds good in theory, I've recently been made more and more aware that we don't do a very good job of living up to this ideal.

For example, from where do we get the idea that we're supposed to use grape juice as the drink in the Lord's Supper?

Looking throughout the Bible for hints concerning the drink used at the Passover (which is the context for the establishment of the Lord's Supper), there's no clue offered until the Gospel accounts, at which time the only clue found is that it is "the fruit of the vine".

With only this information (and that it represents the blood of Christ, given in sacrifice), doesn't it make sense that tomato juice (blood-like, from the vine) would be the best option for the drink at the Lord's Supper?

Or if you just want a fruit of the vine, and don't care about the color, we could use cantaloupe juice, or watermelon juice, or blueberry juice, or passionfruit juice, or any number of other vine fruit juices.

But we don't; we use grape juice (either fermented or not).

The point is: We use grape juice, not because it's taught in the Bible, but because it's a tradition we have inherited from some source outside of the Bible. I think extraBiblical history makes a strong case for using grape juice. But I'm just pointing out that going to extraBiblical history is not relying solely on the the Bible.

"So what," you ask?

If someone wants to use watermelon juice in the Lord's Supper, we can make no objection if we really use the Bible as our sole source of authority in such matters. To make a law that the juice must be grape juice is to teach as doctrine the commandment of men.

We do this a lot. We need to be careful.

Taking Text out of Context

2010-08-05T10:04:00.002-05:00

It's easy to do. We get an idea in our head, search the Bible concordance to find references that might apply, and voila! There's the magic verse that proves our case!

Except, a lot of the time, we've taken the verse out of context, making it say something that it does not say, putting meaning into the text that God did not put there, instead of getting meaning out of the text.

For example, many of my brethren are convinced that drinking any alcohol is a sin (no matter that alcohol consumption is never directly condemned in the Bible, Yahshua declared all foods clean, and Paul stated that "everything is permissible" but not necessarily "good"). (The Bible does, however, condemn drunkeness, and it makes clear that alcohol is dangerous and the wise person will leave it alone.)

As support of their position, they will sometimes point to Habakkuk 2:15:

¹⁵ “ Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbor,
Pressing him to your bottle,
Even to make him drunk,

That's pretty slam-dunk, I'd say. Based on this one verse alone, it's clear that Yahshua would not turn water into alcoholic wine at the marriage feast of his neighbors.

Except, the verse is taken out of context. Let's finish the verse with its last line:

That you may look on his nakedness!

Wow! Okay, that changes the entire tone of the passage. It's not about giving alcohol to your neighbor; it's about trying to get your neighbor drunk so that you can take advantage of him.

And when we look at the rest of the chapter, we see this latter interpretation meshes well with the surrounding context.

Starting at verse 4, the condemnation is against he who is proud, whose soul is not upright in him.

Then in verse 5 he gets bravery from a bottle, gets proud and cocky, and goes and attacks those around him, trying to become world dictator.

In verse 6, those he attacks complain that he's taking what is not his.

Verse 8 speaks of his violence and plundering.

Verses 9-10 mention how he cheats to get ahead.

Verse 12 condemns him who uses evil and bloodshed to build an empire.

In verse 15 is our passage under consideration: woe to him who gets his neighbor drunk so that he can take advantage of that neighbor.

In verses 16 and 17 God warns that He will turn the tables on the perpetrator in verse 15, making the perp drunk so that he will then be exposed, making the violence that he has done come back on him.

I'm in agreement that alcohol consumption should be avoided; I believe it's stupid. (I also believe soft-drink consumption (and Twinkie-consumption, etc) should be avoided; I believe it's stupid also; just not so car-crashing immediately stupid). But Habakkuk 2:15 is not a condemnation of social drinking; it's a condemnation of using and abusing others.

Euthanasia

2010-07-20T14:14:00.003-05:00

In the last chapter of 1 Samuel, we find King Saul surrounded by his enemies, and rather than risk being captured and tortured, he asks his assistant to run him through with a sword. The assistant refuses, so King Saul falls on his own sword.

In the next chapter, the first chapter of 2 Samuel, we find that a third party, an Amalekite, claims to the future King David to have come upon King Saul, who was not yet dead but beyond recovery. He further claimed that at Saul's request, he finished the dying king off.

David soon thereafter had this Amalekite executed. Staying in context, the reason for the execution is that the Amalekite lifted his hand against one who had been anointed by God. But if we take a little bit of liberty with the text, it's not hard to apply this to the idea of euthanasia, mercy-killing, in general.

It may be "merciful" to put a terminal patient out of his misery; after all, he's going to die anyway; why make him suffer any longer than necessary? But in Saul's case, the "mercy-killing" of an almost dead man was considered worse than letting that almost-dead man die on God's time-frame.

Don't think I'm offering any answers, or even any wisdom, here. I'm just reporting the story, and wondering how, if at all, it might apply to our modern tendency to pull the plug on hopeless cases.

If You Love Me, You Will Keep My Commands

2010-06-28T16:50:00.004-05:00

In my previous post, I spoke of rules and regulations in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. As I wrote it, it struck me that in the Old Testament, there are many specific commands given for God's people to follow. In the New Testament, there really aren't that many. Yes, there are a few, but not nearly as many as most of us think there is.

Instead, we've used our logic and common sense and have taken this verse and jigsaw-puzzled it together with that verse to come to a conclusion that we then label as a "command of Jesus". But if we're to be absolutely honest, those are not commands given by Jesus, but rather commandments of men that we make into doctrines.

Don't believe me? Give it a try. Give me the book/chapter/verse containing a command (not a logic-derived conclusion) for each of the doctrines below:

- no hand-raising in worship

- must attend church every time the elders have established for regular meetings

- there must be a multiplicity of elders in each local congregation

- singing in worship must be a cappella

- the main purpose of assembling is to worship God

- you must not drink alcohol or you sin

- you must give money to the church every Sunday

- you must take the Lord's Supper every Sunday

- you must attend church on Sunday

- you must add "in Jesus' name" to every prayer (preferably at the end)

- you must dress up for Sunday church

- you must have a sermon during church

- you must not applaud/clap during church

- you must bow your head and close your eyes during prayers

- you must use Elizabethan English in your songs and prayers

- you must limit "worship" to the specified times of worship

- you must not do anything beyond the "five acts of worship" during worship

- the fruit of the vine in the Lord's Supper can only be grape juice

Please don't think I'm trying to change any of these things (okay, a few of them I'd do away with - the Elizabethan English I think does harm). I'm just pointing out that much of what passes as "commands" in our thinking are not commands. They may be correct conclusions (since the Fall, our logic is not to be trusted completely), but logic-derived conclusions are not commands.

Careful; it might shake up your paradigm if you think about this too much. Keep the commands of Jesus, yes, but don't make the mistake of believing a non-command is a command.

Rules & Regulations

2010-06-28T09:03:00.002-05:00

Most Christians recognize the two main dispensations (time periods) recorded in the Bible: the Mosaic dispensation when the Law of Moses reigned over God's people (most of the "Old Testament"), and the Christian dispensation when the Law of Christ reigns over God's people (the "New Testament").

There were specific commands that were required in the Law Of Moses, such as:

- males must be circumcised
- Sabbath days were to be kept
- certain holy days were to be observed
- sacrifices (often animal) were to be made

But Christians recognize that Paul claimed that the rules and regulations of the Law of Moses no longer apply, because what God truly wants is righteousness coming from a good heart, not from ticking the boxes on a checklist:

^{HCSB Gal 5:14} For the entire law is fulfilled in one statement: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

What many Christians fail to recognize is that Paul feels the same way about the rules and regulations of the "Law of Christ". Many Christians believe the "Law of Christ" to be essentially equivalent to the rules and regulations found in the New Testament, pointing to specific commands such as:

- we must be immersed
- we must not get drunk
- we must remember the Lord's death in the Lord's Supper
- we must make offerings

But the same thing Paul said about the rules and regulations of the Old Law he also says about the New Law, just a few verses later:

^{HCSB Gal 6:2} Carry one another's burdens; in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.

If we really believe that specific commands in the Old Law, even the "supreme, absolutely must be done without fail" command of circumcision, are "nothing":

⁶ For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision accomplishes anything; what matters is faith working through love.

then to be consistent we must also recognize that "supreme, absolutely must be done without fail" commands in the New Law are also "nothing" in comparison with "faith working through love", i.e., "carrying one another's burdens".

Yes, yes, I know: the black-and-white of the New Law text says "you must do X". But the black-and-white of the Old Law text also said "you must do X". But Paul says the Old Law command is fulfilled in loving your neighbor; he also says that the New Law command is fulfilled in loving your neighbor (by bearing his load).

If it's true for the Old because Paul said it; it's also true for the New because Paul said it.

The same arguments we use to support our pet doctrine were also used by the Pharisees in the early years of the church, who insisted that "the Book" required circumcision. And they were right: the Book did require circumcision (even before the temporary Law of Moses, so that even if the Law of Moses itself is gone, the command to be circumcised is not). But Paul said what mattered was faith working in love, not keeping the technical details of the written code.

We today are focused on keeping the technical details of the written code. The written code is good (as Paul says of the Old written code), but that's not what matters. He writes:

^{HCSB Col 2:20} If you died with Christ to the elemental forces of this world, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations: ²¹ "Don't handle, don't taste, don't touch"? ²² All these [regulations] refer to what is destroyed by being used up; they are human commands and doctrines. ²³ Although these have a reputation of wisdom by promoting ascetic practices, humility, and severe treatment of the body, they are not of any value against fleshly indulgence.

We moderns try to interpret this passage as a condemnation of Old Testament regulations, but that's because we're reading meaning into the passage rather than taking meaning out of the passage. What does the passage say? It says that submitting to regulations (not to "Mosaic Law regulations") is living as if you belong to the world.

He expands on this idea a few verses before:

¹⁶ Therefore don't let anyone judge you in regard to food and drink or in the matter of a festival or a new moon or a sabbath day. ¹⁷ These are a shadow of what was to come; the substance is the Messiah. ¹⁸ Let no one disqualify you, insisting on ascetic practices and the worship of angels, claiming access to a visionary realm and inflated without cause by his fleshly mind.

He addresses it elsewhere as well, again saying that what matters is how it affects other people:

^{HCSB 1 Cor 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.

So whereas rules such as "You must never drink alcohol" or "You must go to church three times a week", etc, sound good, that's not what Christianity is about.

Christianity is about others. According to the scriptures, the Law of Christ is fulfilled in this one command: Bear one another's burdens.

A Secular Society

2010-06-21T13:56:00.001-05:00

In the early days of the German advance into Eastern Europe, before the possibility of Soviet retribution even entered their untroubled imagination, Nazi extermination squads would sweep into villages, and after forcing the villagers to dig their own graves, murder their victims with machine guns. On one such occasion somewhere in eastern Europe , an SS officer watched languidly, his machine gun cradled, as an elderly and bearded Hasidic Jew laboriously dug what he knew to be his grave.

Standing up straight, he addressed his executioner. “God is watching what you are doing,” he said.

And then he was shot dead.

What Hitler did not believe and what Stalin did not believe and what Mao did not believe and what the SS did not believe and what the Gestapo did not believe and what the NKVD did not believe and what the commissars, functionaries, swaggering executioners, Nazi doctors, Communist Party theoreticians, intellectuals,Brown shirts, Black shirts,gauleiters, and a thousand party hacks did not believe was that God was watching what they were doing.

And as far as we can tell, very few of those carrying out the horrors of the twentieth century worried overmuch that God was watching what they were doing either.

That is, after all, the meaning of a secular society.

(taken from David Berlinski’s book ‘The Devils delusion Atheism and its scientific pretensions’) as quoted at http://telicthoughts.com/berlinskis-wisdom/

Temple Police

2010-06-09T08:06:00.003-05:00

Barbara Brown Taylor writes an interesting article in which she points out:

One of the many things [the Good Friday crucifixion of Jesus] story tells us is that Jesus was not brought down by atheism and anarchy. He was brought down by law and order allied with religion, which is always a deadly mix. Beware of those who claim to know the mind of God and who are prepared to use force, if necessary, to make others conform. Beware of those who cannot tell God’s will from their own. Temple police are always a bad sign.

Then, after pointing out that Judas had been Jesus' friend, she tells this story:

I remember being at a retreat once where the leader asked us to think of someone who represented Christ in our lives. When it came time to share our answers, one woman stood up and said, "I had to think hard about that one. I kept thinking, ‘Who is it who told me the truth about myself so clearly that I wanted to kill him for it?"’

I find these two thoughts worth pondering.

Who Are You Tuning Out?

2010-06-08T14:22:00.002-05:00

In the Biblical book of Exodus we read the story of how the young Israelite nation has been enslaved by the Egyptian Pharaoh, in whose land they were temporarily living. YHWH God raises up a man, Moses, whose job it is to lead them out of Egyptian slavery back into their promised homeland. Because Moses had a speech problem, YHWH appointed his older brother, Aaron, as his mouthpiece.

YHWH tells Moses:

^{HCSB Exodus 7:1} See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother will be your prophet. ² You must say whatever I command you; then Aaron your brother must declare it to Pharaoh so that he will let the Israelites go from his land. ³ But ... Pharaoh will not listen to you....

This parallel strikes me:

God --> prophet --> hearers
Moses --> prophet --> hearers

What struck me about this is God's use of a human to communicate; God did not speak directly to Pharaoh; nor did He use his prophet to speak to Pharaoh; rather, He used his prophet's prophet to speak to Pharaoh.

As far as Pharaoh was concerned, he was hearing a human's mind, and Pharaoh's response was to reject what he heard.

This raises a question in my mind: When I reject another human's words to me, am I rejecting a message God intended for me?

I'm not saying that God is going around telling Bob to tell Mary X & Y. I'm just asking if perhaps Mary is tuning out God's message when she tunes out Bob.

Who are you tuning out? Or perhaps the only question I can really ask is, Who am I tuning out?

What The Gospel Is

2010-06-01T15:28:00.003-05:00

In my last post, I discussed what the Gospel is not, specifically, that it is not equivalent to the New Testament. Here I want to explore what the Gospel is.

There are at least two definitions of "the Gospel" in the New Testament. The first is given in 1 Corinthians 15:

^{HCSB 1 Cor 15:1}Now brothers, I want to clarify for you the gospel I proclaimed to you; you received it and have taken your stand on it. ² You are also saved by it, if you hold to the message I proclaimed to you—unless you believed to no purpose. ³ For I passed on to you as most important what I also received:
that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
⁴ that He was buried,
that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
⁵ and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.
⁶ Then He appeared to over 500 brothers at one time,
most of whom remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.
⁷ Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
⁸ Last of all, as to one abnormally born, He also appeared to me.

So, according to this first definition, the Gospel is the death, burial, resurrection, and appearance of Christ.

However, according to at least three other sources, the Gospel is that all nations will be blessed.

Highlights of Romans 10:14 - 12:1
Not all have obeyed the gospel; didn't they hear? Yes. Didn't Israel understand when Moses announced that they would be made jealous by the salvation of non-Jews, and when Isaiah said that God would be found by those not looking for Him, while the Jews, to whom God was spreading out His hands, remained disobedient and defiant? Yet God's mercy extends to both Jew and Gentile, to the Gentile who has been grafted into God's olive tree by faith, and to the Jew who can be re-grafted back into the tree if he'll stop abiding in unbelief. Regarding the gospel, the falling away of the Jews results in the salvation of Gentiles. Both groups have disobeyed, and God has imprisoned all in disobedience, so that He may have mercy on all. Therefore, worship God by presenting your bodies as a living sacrifice.

So we see in this summary that the gospel is that not just the Jews, who were chosen, but also the Gentiles, will be blessed with God's mercy.

Highlights of Galatians 2:11-16
Paul had to correct Peter publicly, because he was deviating from the truth of the gospel. Peter should have remembered that just as the Jews had been justified by faith, so too the Gentiles, so he should quit acting like the Gentiles were not part of the family.

So we see in this summary that deviating from the gospel is to forget that not just the Jews, who were chosen, but also the Gentiles, were blessed with God's mercy.

Highlights of Galatians 3:8
The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith and foretold this gospel to Abraham, saying, "All the nations will be blessed in you."

So we see in this summary that the gospel is that not just the Jews, who were chosen, but also the Gentiles, will be blessed.

So, in summation, there are at least two Biblical definitions in the New Testament for the term "Gospel" (or "Good News"):

1) the death, burial, resurrection, and appearance of Christ

and

2) that not only the chosen Jews, but also the Gentiles, would be blessed with salvation by faith in Christ.

What the Gospel Is Not

2010-06-01T13:36:00.008-05:00

Norman R. writes the following:

What is the gospel?
2 Thess 1:7-9 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power.
What I taught and what is still taught by many congregations is that the word gospel in this verse includes everything in the NT.

All the Christians on the day of Pentecost obeyed the gospel before any of the New Testament was written and all the Christians who died at the orders of Saul died before any of the New Testament was written.

In about 58 a.d. Paul wrote Galatians, the second book of the New Testament to be written. All the Galatians had obeyed the gospel and some wanted to leave it, before they read Galatians, and probably before they read any book of the New Testament. Galatians may be part of the gospel to some Christians, but it certainly was not part of the gospel to the Galatians.

The NT Christians did not need Galatians, Romans, Acts, Matthew or other letters to be in fellowship with God. Faith in the death, burial, resurrection, ascension and the promises through that sacrifice placed them in fellowship with God.

Why were the epistles of Paul, Galatians, Romans, Corinthians, etc. written? It appears that some of the churches wrote to Paul with questions. They wanted answers to some of the things they didn't understand. Paul heard that some churches were having problems and Paul wrote these churches to correct some problems. Have you ever noticed that we would have a very small New Testament if the church had been perfect? Most of the New Testament was written to correct some problem in the church. Some do apply to us and some don't apply, but we have a multitude of principles that we can use.

In other words, "the Gospel" does not equate to "the New Testament".

Some might respond that the early Christians had all the information provided by the New Testament via supernatural revelation, even if it had not yet been written down. But in at least the question of whether Gentile Christians had to submit to the Jewish Law (Acts 15), there were Gentile Christians who had obeyed "the Gospel" prior to this matter being settled. Thus, in this issue at least, the New Testament contains information which those Gentile (or Jewish) Christians could not have known even though they had obeyed "the Gospel".

Simply put, once again, "the Gospel" is not the same as "the New Testament".

A Quick Question

2010-05-20T09:18:00.003-05:00

If a group of men at church ask a woman to lead a prayer publicly, is she "usurping authority" if she does or if she doesn't?

(This is just a thought exercise, folks; I'm not trying to be a "change-agent".)

Monkeys in a Cage

2010-05-10T15:40:00.002-05:00

The following comes from an unknown source, but seems applicable to how we sometimes do things in the church.

====

Start with a cage containing five monkeys.

Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the other monkeys with cold water.

After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result - all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.

Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attack him.

After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm! Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked.

Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana. Why not? Because as far as they know that's the way it's always been done round here.

And that, my friends, is how company policies are made.

Meeting in the Synagogue

2010-04-27T09:53:00.004-05:00

Most Christians know that the early Christians met in the Temple complex and in their own homes (house churches), and by river sides, and later in catacombs, etc. I suspect most even think (without having given it any thought) that the early Christians actually built their own little brick assembly buildings with a sign out front announcing that "the Church of Christ meets here, Sunday AM 9:00, Sun PM 6:00, Wed PM 7:00".

But few, I think realize that they also met in synagogues. For the first fourteen years of the church, the church was exclusively Jewish. And these Jews had been meeting in the synagogue all their lives. Once converted, they did not cease this habit; in fact, Yahshua expected them to continue that habit, Saul expected that's where he'd find these "heretics", and James refers to their synagogue meeting.

^{HCSB John 16:2} They will ban you from the synagogues. In fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering service to God.

^{HCSB Acts 9:1} Meanwhile Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest ² and requested letters from him to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any who belonged to the Way, either men or women, he might bring them as prisoners to Jerusalem.

^{HCSB Acts 26:11} In all the synagogues I often tried to make them blaspheme by punishing them. Being greatly enraged at them, I even pursued them to foreign cities.

^{YLT James 2:1}My brethren, hold not, in respect of persons, the faith of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, ²for if there may come into your synagogue a man with gold ring, in gay raiment, and there may come in also a poor man in vile raiment,³and ye may look upon him bearing the gay raiment, and may say to him, `Thou -- sit thou here well,' and to the poor man may say, `Thou -- stand thou there, or, Sit thou here under my footstool,' -- ⁴ye did not judge fully in yourselves, and did become ill-reasoning judges

S'mikeh Authority

2010-04-27T09:33:00.001-05:00

^{HCSB Matt 18:20} For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there among them.

I would like to caution against taking passages out of context. All my life I've heard this Matthew 18:20 reference cited to prove that "church" could be any grouping of Christians, down to the smallest number which might constitute a group.

But that's not what the passage is about; the passage is about the church's authority to make/apply rules in individual situations. In the Jewish Rabbinic culture in which Yahshua and his disciples were raised, the various religious authorities (this rabbi vs that rabbi; this school of thought vs that school of thought) would "bind" or "loose" various aspects of the Law of Moses depending on the situation.

For example, one rabbi would teach that if a donkey needed help on the Sabbath (doctoring, pulling out of a pit, etc) the needs of the donkey took precedence over the rules regarding doing no work on the Sabbath, whereas a different rabbi would insist that the donkey's needs must wait until the Sabbath had passed. Yahshua used this very issue to show that human needs take precedence over legal strictures, when he healed the man with the crippled hand on the Sabbath, which put him on the Pharisees' hit-list (Mark 3:1-6).

These various doctrinal "packages" from the various schools of thought / rabbis were called "yokes". Yahshua said his yoke was easy.

Most rabbis were average, run-of-the-mill rabbis, who could teach what had been determined by rabbis having authority, but they could not glean/apply "new" meaning from the text and teach it. They were limited to teaching what the community considered to be orthodox.

But a rare few rabbis were "s'mikeh rabbis", rabbis who had authority. (s'mikeh is pronounced something like "smee-hah!".) Within the previous generation, both Hillel and Gamaliel had been s'mikeh rabbis. When Yahshua came teaching as one having authority rather than like the scribes (Mark 1:22), it astonished his listeners. The officials then challenged him, asking how he had become a s'mikeh rabbi, and he answered them in typical Jewish fashion with his own question, asking them whether John the Immerser had s'mikeh. His implication was that he had gotten his authoritative position at least partially from John. (A s'mikeh rabbi had to be so endowed by two authorities: John was one; God (in the form of a dove descending on him post-immersion) was the other.) The officials refused to answer Yahshua's question, so he refused to answer theirs, again, in typical Jewish fashion.

In the context of Matthew 18:20, Yahshua is teaching his disciples that he is giving them s'mikeh, the authority to bind and loose. If two of these new s'mikeh rabbis agreed on anything, then that would be the "law" in the church. We later see an example of this in Acts 15, when the church elders and apostles gather together to decide the issue of what would be required of the new Gentile converts: do they have to convert to Judaism and be good Jews in order to be Christians, or not? (The decision was no, the Gentiles did not have to convert to Judaism in order to be Christians.)

For convenience, here's the context of the passage:

^{HCSB Matt 18:15} "If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him in private. If he listens to you, you have won your brother. ¹⁶ But if he won't listen, take one or two more with you, so that by the testimony of two or three witnesses every fact may be established. ¹⁷ If he pays no attention to them, tell the church. But if he doesn't pay attention even to the church, let him be like an unbeliever and a tax collector to you. ¹⁸ I assure you: Whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven. ¹⁹ Again, I assure you: If two of you on earth agree about any matter that you pray for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven. ²⁰ For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there among them.

Go Ye Therefore Into all the World...

2010-04-27T00:38:00.002-05:00

You grew up hearing Matthew 28:19 rendered thusly:

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: ....
(KJV)

Problem is, as I understand it, that's not what the Greek says. Instead, it says:

So wherever you go, make disciples of all nations: Baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
(GOD'S WORD Translation)

Therefore, as you go, disciple people in all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit....
(International Standard Version)

And as long as I'm beating up on the King James Version, Acts 2:47 does not say:

Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
(KJV)

Instead, the word translated "church" is the Greek "auto", meaning "self" or "same". Thus the verse should be rendered something more like:

Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the same people daily such as should be saved. (my rendering)

praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to them day by day those that were being saved. (ERV)

Three Gospels?

2010-04-12T15:42:00.003-05:00

I've recently been exposed to a teaching that there are three gospels mentioned in the Bible (http://yesforfamilies.com/covenant/book/ - I've not yet finished reading this, so there may be more comment/retraction to come):

1) the gospel preached to Abraham

2) the gospel of the kingdom of God

3) the gospel of Jesus Christ

The idea is that there have been different gospels at different times and with different peoples.

At first that piqued my interest, but as I consider it further, I see that all three of these gospels are really one and the same.

The good news ("gospel") preached to Abraham (Gal 3:8-9) is that God would justify all nations, including non-Jews, by faith.

⁸ Now the Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith and foretold the good news to Abraham, saying, All the nations will be blessed in you. ⁹ So those who have faith are blessed with Abraham, who had faith.

The good news ("gospel") as summarized by Paul elsewhere (1 Cor 15:1-8) is that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, was buried, raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and appeared to several hundred people, including the apostles.

¹ Now brothers, I want to clarify for you the gospel I proclaimed to you; you received it and have taken your stand on it. ² You are also saved by it, if you hold to the message I proclaimed to you—unless you believed to no purpose. ³ For I passed on to you as most important what I also received:
that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
⁴ that He was buried,
that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
⁵ and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.
⁶ Then He appeared to over 500 brothers at one time,
most of whom remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.
⁷ Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
⁸ Last of all, as to one abnormally born, He also appeared to me.

The "first" gospel is not a different gospel than the "second": it's merely emphasizing the what instead of the how. All nations are justified by faith in and because of the death, burial, resurrection, and appearance of Jesus.

This one gospel is contrasted with the false gospel of Galatians 1 and 2: The true good news is that all nations will be justified by faith (Gal 3:8-9) via the death, burial, resurrection, and appearance of Jesus (1 Cor 15:1-8); the false good news of Gal 1:6-9 was that we are justified by works of the law (Gal 2:15).

The good news ("gospel") which Jesus preached during his three years of ministry was that the time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God has come near (Mark 1:14-15).

¹⁴ After John was arrested, Jesus went to Galilee, preaching the good news of God: ¹⁵ "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near.

Again, this is not a different, third gospel; it's the same, simply worded differently: Justification is in the kingdom of God, established at the cross.

The good news is that the kingship of Jesus has come, established by his death, burial, resurrection, and appearance, and that this process enables God to justify all nations by faith. To separate this one package of good news into three separate packages is to miss that they are all essentially the same thing, just worded differently.

So:

True Good News - the kingdom of God has arrived, established by the death, burial, resurrection, and appearance of Jesus, which provides justification to all nations by faith.

False Good News - we are justified by works of the law

(All references from the Holman Christian Standard Bible)

A Reason for Suffering

2010-04-08T16:30:00.002-05:00

From Deuteronomy 8 (The Message, modified):

Remember every road that YHWH led you on for those forty years in the wilderness, pushing you to your limits, testing you so that he would know what you were made of, whether you would keep his commandments or not. He put you through hard times. He made you go hungry. Then he fed you with manna, something neither you nor your parents knew anything about, so you would learn that men and women don't live by bread only; we live by every word that comes from YHWH's mouth. Your clothes didn't wear out and your feet didn't blister those forty years. You learned deep in your heart that YHWH disciplines you in the same ways a father disciplines his child.
So it's paramount that you keep the commandments of YHWH, your God, walk down the roads he shows you and reverently respect him. YHWH is about to bring you into a good land, a land with brooks and rivers, springs and lakes, streams out of the hills and through the valleys. It's a land of wheat and barley, of vines and figs and pomegranates, of olives, oil, and honey. It's land where you'll never go hungry—always food on the table and a roof over your head. It's a land where you'll get iron out of rocks and mine copper from the hills.
After a meal, satisfied, bless YHWH, your God, for the good land he has given you.
Make sure you don't forget YHWH, your God, by not keeping his commandments, his rules and regulations that I command you today. Make sure that when you eat and are satisfied, build pleasant houses and settle in, see your herds and flocks flourish and more and more money come in, watch your standard of living going up and up—make sure you don't become so full of yourself and your things that you forget YHWH, your God,

the God who delivered you from Egyptian slavery;
the God who led you through that huge and fearsome wilderness, those desolate, arid badlands crawling with fiery snakes and scorpions;
the God who gave you water gushing from hard rock;
the God who gave you manna to eat in the wilderness, something your ancestors had never heard of, in order to give you a taste of the hard life, to test you so that you would be prepared to live well in the days ahead of you.
If you start thinking to yourselves, "I did all this. And all by myself. I'm rich. It's all mine!"—well, think again. Remember that YHWH, your God, gave you the strength to produce all this wealth ....

I'm Righteous! I'm Righteous! Therefore I'm Saved!

2010-04-08T15:45:00.002-05:00

A bit earlier today I was reading in the book of Job. As you know, Job was blessed in many ways by God, then Satan challenged God that Job was only a righteous man because God blessed him, and that he would turn from God if God took away his blessings, and God allowed Satan to take away God's blessings from Job as a test of Job.

During the resulting suffering that Job underwent, four friends came along, and three of them tried to convince Job that he had done something wrong. Job kept claiming that he hadn't done anything wrong, but that God was doing wrong by him.

Eventually the fourth friend, Elihu, spoke up, and said that the first three, although older and presumably wiser, were not wise, and he spoke his peace.

Finally, God Himself spoke, and castigated Job for thinking he was oh-so-righteous and knew better than God did, but that Job was right, he hadn't done anything wrong to deserve the suffering. God also forced the first three friends to apologize (via sacrifice), saying He was angry with the three friends. But He spoke nothing of the fourth friend who spoke last, which is interesting, because of what was said about the fourth friend just before he began his speech:

^{HCSB Job 32:2} Then Elihu son of Barachel the Buzite from the family of Ram became angry. He was angry at Job because he had justified himself rather than God.

Job did everything right, but what got him into trouble with God (or at least Elihu) is that Job justified himself by his right-doing, rather than giving the credit to God.

Genesis 6:22 says that "Noah did everything exactly as God had commanded him", but that's not what saved him and his family. Instead, "By his faith Noah ... received the righteousness that comes by faith" (Heb 11:7 NLT).

Don't trust in your own right-ness. Instead, have faith that the right-ness of Yahshua is given to you by God's grace, and then do the right thing.

A Dream with a Message

2010-03-25T14:15:00.004-05:00

I had a dream the other night. Although it was more detailed, this is the basic jist.

I was going on a job interview unexpectedly and wasn't attired appropriately. I was on a road trip (maybe as a 20-something, with "the guys"?), and was dressed accordingly: ratty jeans, stained t-shirt, river-wading sneakers, hadn't bathed in two days, scraggly beard, etc.

The woman with whom I would be interviewing was known to be demanding, and it was clear that she would not approve of my appearance, and I had nearly zero chance of getting a job.

Yet I knew something that astounded me, and it is this message that I believe God sent via my dream. I knew that when she challenged me on my unkempt appearance at a job interview, I was going to answer with the following, which I believed entirely:

It's not your choice whether or not I get a job. That's God's choice. You just think it's your choice.

When I woke up, I realized that is true. We think we have control over this or that, because we have the position/power/ability/whatever. But like Pharoah who thought he was making decisions about the Israelites, it's all God.

Where God wants us, is where we'll be. It's in our best mental health interest to accept/acknowledge His control over our lives, and quit thinking we're in control.

At least, that's the message that so strongly rang out to me in my dream.

The Third Heaven

2010-03-16T10:22:00.003-05:00

The apostle Paul, in 2 Corinthians 12:2ff, writes:

² I know a man in Christ who was caught up into the third heaven 14 years ago. Whether he was in the body or out of the body, I don't know; God knows. ³ I know that this man—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— ⁴ was caught up into paradise. He heard inexpressible words, which a man is not allowed to speak....

Much mental effort has been expended trying to figure out how many levels of heaven there are, and what those levels are.

But the more I think about it, the more I suspect that we make a mistake to approach this issue from a Western mindset. I don't believe Paul is telling us that he's been to Level 3 of 7 levels, or 3 of 28, or whatever.

If you search Biblegateway for the term "heaven", and try to figure out what the terms mean as you look at each reference found, you'll find there's a lot of crossover between usages. Sometimes the heavens are eternal; sometimes they're temporary. Sometimes God dwells in the highest heaven; sometimes He dwells above the highest heaven. Sometimes the stars are in heaven, sometimes rain comes from heaven. In other words, there's no Western-thought-type consistency in what/where heaven is, and we damage the text to try and force-fit an Eastern text into a Western mindset.

Instead, ask yourself what the number three meant to an Eastern mind of the time.

The number 1 usually referred to God ("God is One"), and the number 2 usually referred to humanity (Adam and Eve), so the number 3 referred to the union of God and Humanity (1 + 2 = 3).

From another angle, animals had a body of flesh (1 - Gen 6:17), and the breath of life (2 - Gen 6:17), just as humans did. But humans also had the image of God (3 - Gen 1:26), so again, 3 refers to the union of the worldly image with God's image.

When Paul writes of the third heaven, it seems to me that he's saying he went to a place beyond the two heavens where the birds fly and the stars dwell; he went to the place where God receives human visitors. He went to God's guest parlor, so to speak.

I'm no expert in Eastern thinking, by any stretch. But I seriously doubt that Paul's reference is correctly approached from a Western way of thinking.

I may be wrong.

The Format of Church

2010-03-15T09:32:00.002-05:00

Many of us have grown up with the idea that church consists of most of the members sitting quietly in the pews, only opening their mouths for singing or an occasional "Amen", while the leaders, particularly the preacher, speak from a raised platform, lecturing the quiet members.

But I contend this is more a format we've retained from 2000 years of tradition rather than gleaning from New Testament principles.

Even in the very first Gospel sermon, in Acts 2, there was give-and-take dialog rather than a strict lecture format.

The apostles spoke as the Spirit gave them utterance (Acts 2:4). The people around asked what was happening, and some accused the apostles of being drunk (2:5-12). Peter addressed the crowd with his answer (14-36). The people again began to chatter and discuss (2:37). Peter again responded with his answer (2:38ff).

Then for the next few chapters there's a lot of brief history that doesn't really focus on church assemblies as such, but in chapter 20 we do find a church assembly, and in this assembly, Paul "dialogs" and "discourses" with the church. Note that he does not lecture, but that he "discusses", "reasons", "converses", "communes", "talks with" them (see Strong's Greek Dictionary, #1256 dialegomai, and #3656, homileo).

In the previous chapter, "^{Acts 19:8} [Paul] entered the synagogue and spoke boldly over a period of three months, engaging in discussion and trying to persuade them about the things related to the kingdom of God." Again, it's not a lecture; it's a discussion.

Looking closely at other hints in the New Testament, it appears that most of the assembling was about dialoging with each other rather than passively sitting and listening to a lecturer. 1 Tim 1:5 refers to those whose discussions have become unfruitful.

Turning to the church in Corinth, Paul does not instruct the members to sit quietly and listen to a lecture; instead, he says:

^{The Message 1 Cor 14:26-33}So here's what I want you to do. When you gather for worship, each one of you be prepared with something that will be useful for all: Sing a hymn, teach a lesson, tell a story, lead a prayer, provide an insight. If prayers are offered in tongues, two or three's the limit, and then only if someone is present who can interpret what you're saying. Otherwise, keep it between God and yourself. And no more than two or three speakers at a meeting, with the rest of you listening and taking it to heart. Take your turn, no one person taking over. Then each speaker gets a chance to say something special from God, and you all learn from each other. If you choose to speak, you're also responsible for how and when you speak. When we worship the right way, God doesn't stir us up into confusion; he brings us into harmony. This goes for all the churches—no exceptions.

Notice, it's not chaos, but neither is it everyone sitting being passive. He wants the members to be involved in some way to build up the others, with the speaking roles not taking over.

We also tend to think that church and eating are two different things. But to the same church in Corinth, Paul writes just three chapters earlier that when they come together to eat their meal combined with their observance of the Lord's Supper, they need to not be selfish about eating, but to rather wait on one another and eat as a family (1 Cor 11:17ff).

And we see the same church assembly/eating activity in Acts 20:7ff.

And we have the example which Jesus set for us in the very beginning, where the first Lord's Supper was incorporated into a meal (Mk 14:12ff).

Please do not get me wrong: I am not saying that the format to which we're accustomed is wrong. I am not saying that we should not have sermons/lectures.

I am saying two things:

1)
Our traditional way of doing things has turned the bulk of the church body into do-nothing, passive listeners, and that we need to rethink how we do things. Should we have pews, or chairs/couches facing each other? Should we remove the podium altogether, or move it to the center of the group, or lower it, or replace the lectern with a chair? (Jesus sat when he taught; Matt 5:1-2; Luke 4:20-21). Should we encourage discussion, or continue with the lecture format?

and

2)
Our traditional way of doing things may be marginalizing those people who don't fit into our traditional way of doing things. I'm thinking of those people who need a little chaos in order to learn. As a teen, I needed music blaring in my ear in order to study my school stuff. But that would not be allowed in our traditional way of doing things. Someone else may need to busy one part of their brain with a game on their cell phone in order to pay attention with another part of their brain to the sermon. Someone else may need lots of colors and artwork and sculptures in the building to feel comfortable enough to learn, and can't learn in our traditional blah color-scheme decorated by ... nothing.

I'm just asking you to rethink whether the format you know as "Church" is really Biblical, or just traditional. If it is just traditional, is there a format that is more Biblical, or that might would appeal to different learning styles?

Or is that what different congregations are for? The Northside Congregation is designed for fuddy-duddies; the Southside Congregation is designed for artsy-touchy-feely types? I think that might be a workable solution, provided that the Northside church does not condemn the Southside for their "unBiblical" format, and vice-versa.

God made us all different. Let's not condemn each other because they don't fit in with the way we learn. That person may need to play with his cellphone while sitting passively during a sermon; but he may need to move to the back to not distract those around him. Or he may need to stand and sway back and forth rather than sit for 20 minutes at a time. Move him to a place where he does not distract you; don't condemn him for not being you.

Let all things be done for edification (1 Cor 14:26); don't mistake your style of learning as being the Biblical style, and don't make the mistake of thinking that your style of learning works for everyone.

Dying, You Shall Die

2010-03-12T11:47:00.002-06:00

Notice the structure of this verse:

^{HCSB 1 Kings 2:37} On the day you do leave and cross the Kidron Valley, know for sure that you will certainly die.

It's the same structure we find in Genesis, when God warns Adam and Eve against eating the forbidden fruit:

^{HCSB Gen2:17} ...on the day you eat from [the tree of the knowledge of good and evil], you will certainly die."

On the day you do something, you will certainly die, or know you'll certainly die.

In the Hebrew, this "certainly die" is muwth-muwth - or "die-die". The meaning behind this repetition is that "dying, you will die".

So, in Genesis, on the day that Adam ate of the forbidden fruit, he was as good as dead, and on the day that Shimei violated his house-arrest by crossing the Kidron Valley on the way out of town, he should realize that he was as good as dead.

In both cases, the death is not immediate, but it is sealed. In Adam's case, it was immediately apparent because of physical changes that started taking place, including his realization that he was naked and needed covering. In Shimei's case, he probably thought no one would notice.

Th Night Grannie Died

2010-03-11T13:15:00.003-06:00

As I remember the story (and I'm sure I'm misremembering how it was told to me), one late night out in the country in the first half of the 1900's my family was gathered at the old home-place, where Great-Grannie was in bed, sick. After dark, the folks noticed a ball of fire fly by overhead, and the men-folk gave chase to investigate. The ball of fire ran along the ground ahead of them, and disappeared under the house in which Great-Grannie was lying, and was seen no more.

That night, Great-Grannie died.

As a young man hearing this story, I was fascinated by this tale of what I later came to believe was just a coincidence involving the rare phenomenon of ball-lightning. Too bad I don't have any of the really old-timers around anymore to ask how close my story is to their recollections of it.

Jesus = Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

2010-03-10T14:05:00.003-06:00

I had never noticed this before.

^{HCSB Matt 28:19} Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit....

It says "name", not "title". The terms "Father", "Son", and "Holy Spirit" are all titles, not names.

It also says "name" (singular), not "names" (plural).

Many of us have been "baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit", as Matthew indicates we should be, but it's interesting to note that in the book of Acts, at least some of the conversions are done in an actual name, and not in three titles:

^{HCSB Acts 2:38} "Repent," Peter said to them, "and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus the Messiah for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

and

^{HCSB Acts:8:16} For He had not yet come down on any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

and

^{HCSB Acts 10:48} And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

and

^{HCSB Acts:195} On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

So it becomes pretty clear that the one name of "Jesus" is equivalent to the three titles of "Father", "Son", and "Holy Ghost", and to be immersed in the name of Jesus is to be immersed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I Come to Give Praise ....

2010-03-08T16:42:00.002-06:00

Spoiler Alert: If you haven't seen the movie, "The Sixth Sense", and don't want to ruin the plot, do not read the next paragraph.

You recall in the movie how the Bruce Willis character had all sorts of evidences presented to him that he was dead, but he never saw them until a final piece triggered the flashbacks of all the evidences. This happened to me yesterday.

I was raised on "Star Trek"'s Mister Spock: cold, logical, emotionless. And whereas I'm not emotionless (even less so as I get older), I do tend to drop into a Mr. Spock mode, especially in a debate situation. I approach the debate as logically as I can, leaving the emotion at home.

The problem is that this worldview, so to speak, has caused me to miss the evidences before my eyes that I can be hypercritical; I see something wrong, I point it out. It's nothing personal. It's just logical that if it's wrong, it should be made right.

Yesterday, a friend called me on this, and I realized that I often criticize him without giving him praise. I think highly of him, but he doesn't hear that; all he ever hears is the criticism. And when that clicked in my brain, I had a bunch of flashbacks about the same treatment I give to other people, especially those I love.

So to you who get my criticisms, I'm sorry. I can't promise I'll remember tomorrow, or next week, that I've decided to offer more praise than criticism, but as of right now, this moment, that's my decision.

You have my permission to help hold me to it.

And you especially have my request to help me learn to do it, to make it a habit.

Being of One Mind

2010-02-25T14:55:00.002-06:00

I recently heard a whispered comment in relation to some of the New Testament passages to "be of the same mind". The comment was:

Being of the same mind, we have to think the same things.

That's the way I was raised, and what I believed most of my life. But here I'd like to see if I can present a different perspective.

Philippians 2
--------------------

One of the passages for supporting this position is Philippians 2:2,5:

^{NKJV Philippians 2:}² fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. ... ⁵ Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus....

This quote sounds like we are to "think the same things". But I believe that is going beyond what the passage actually says.

Looking at the broader context, particularly verses 6 and following, Paul is talking about an attitude, not a doctrinal stance. He's saying, "Humble yourselves; be a servant, like Christ was". He's saying, "Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit" (v3), but to have an humble attitude that accepts the other guy.

He is not saying, in either verse, to "think the same things"; he's saying, in context, "get along with each other".

This follows the example which Jesus himself set in picking his apostles. He picked common laborer fishermen, and he picked an "I'm holier than thou" Pharisee, and he picked a couple of guerrilla-fighter zealots, and he picked a despised, hated, not-to-be-associated-with-at-any-cost-don't-even-touch-him "filthy scum" tax collector. As this disparate group spent time with and learned from Jesus, their ways of thinking began to get similar, but thinking the same thing was not the mark of discipleship; instead, the mark of discipleship was love for each other. He did not say, "You can't be my disciples until you all think alike." He told them:

^{^{NKJV John 13:35} By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.}
We also see this from the first few decades of church history. In the beginning, only Law-keeping Jews were Christians. When non-Law-keeping Gentiles were invited into the church by God, the Jews who kept the Mosaic Law at first thought the Gentiles had to become converted Jews in the process of becoming Christians. Although several passages in Acts indicate this, it's plainly spelled out in chapter 15:

^{^{NKJV Acts 15:1} And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”}
For several decades there were essentially two groups of believers within the church: the "Jews who have believed" which stressed the keeping of the law (Acts 21:21), and the "Gentiles who believe" (Acts 21:25), who did not need to keep the law, except for four specifics (Acts 21:25), to keep peace between the two groups.

These two groups were "like-minded" in that they got along with each other, but they were not "like-minded" in that they did not "think the same things".

We, in the 21st century, forget that God approved of two very different ways of thinking, divided into two very different groups, in His first-century church. By forgetting that scriptural lesson, we make the mistake of thinking that modern-day Christians can not have vastly different ways of thinking and doing things but must instead "think the same things". I daresay that if we had a Jewish church of Christ across the street from the church of Christ I attend, which stressed the keeping of the Mosaic Law (not for justification purposes but for cultural purposes), most of us at my congregation would dismiss them as non-Christians, and would have nothing to do with them except perhaps to try and "convert" them. God did not dismiss them; who are we to cause a division where God has not? Instead, we should be marked for being divisive in such a case (Rom 16:17).

I believe it's true that if we use the Bible as our standard, our thinking will more and more focus into thinking the same things, but I don't believe the Philippians 2 passage as quoted above can be used (in context) as a proof-text for that concept.

Romans 15
----------------

Neither can Romans 15:5-6 be used, in context, to support the idea that Christians must "think the same things". The passage says:

^{^{NKJV Rom 15:5} Now may the God of patience and comfort grant you to be like-minded toward one another, according to Christ Jesus, ⁶ that you may with one mind and one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.}
Putting the passage back into its context, we find the next verse says that we are to "receive one another", not that we are to think like one another. The previous chapter makes this even more clear, in which we are taught that some Christians have no problem eating meat, whereas some do; some Christians observe special days as holy; some do not. But it's no matter that they don't "think the same things"; what matters is that each person has his own beliefs which are between himself and God (Rom 14:4,9,12), and that we are not to dispute over questionable matters (14:1 (even if one party feels the matter is not questionable)), and that we are to receive each other (14:1), pursue peace with one another (14:19), and to keep your own beliefs to yourself before God (14:22) rather than forcing them on the weaker brother.

(Some brothers might claim that people who celebrate Christmas as a "holy day", as Jesus' birthday, or Easter as a holy day, or, horrors! Passover, are not really Christians. But Paul makes it clear that observing holy days is not an issue (even if Christmas did start out as a pagan holiday, is not Biblical, and has nothing to do with the birth of Jesus); therefore we should not make it an issue.)

The point is that Rom 15:5 does not teach us to "think the same thoughts"; it teaches us to get along with and accept each other, even when we don't think the same thoughts on various issues.

Please do not get me wrong; I am not saying that anything goes; I am saying that these particular passages do not teach us to "think the same thoughts", and they should not be used as proof-texts for teaching that. To do so is to make them say what God has not said. I am also saying that God approved of much greater group differences in the first century church than many of us today will allow, and that the concept that we must "think the same things" is a man-made doctrine, not a Biblical one.

How To Be Saved

2010-02-22T10:48:00.003-06:00

How to be saved?

Well, there's the 5-step plan of salvation.

Or maybe praying "the Sinner's Prayer".

Or maybe selling all your possessions and giving the proceeds to the poor.

Or this or that or another method/system.

All good things.

But ultimately,

^{HCSB 1 Peter 1:13} ...set your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Don't set your hope on what you do or don't do; set it on the grace coming to you.

Why You Should Read from More than One Version

2010-02-17T16:08:00.005-06:00

Many of us grew up reading a certain version of the Bible; for those of us older, it was probably the King James Version (KJV). For the current crop of college kids, it was likely the New International Version (NIV).

But I want to encourage you to alternate reading between several different versions.

Why?

Because otherwise you are trained according to the translators' biases, not according to what God actually said.

Here's an example from 1 Corinthians 7:1, wherein Paul is addressing a question concerning marriage/sex asked by the Corinthians.

In the KJV, it says:

¹Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

And in the NIV:

¹Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.

But the Holman Christian Standard Bible renders it thus:

¹ About the things you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have relations with a woman."

Whoa! Those quotation marks change the meaning of the passage entirely.

The English Standard Version also adds the quotation marks.

And here it is in The Message:

¹ Now, getting down to the questions you asked in your letter to me. First, Is it a good thing to have sexual relations?

If you had read only the KJV all your life, you'd have thought that God said it was good for a man to not have sex. You'd likely think the same thing if you had read the NIV if you don't pay attention to footnotes.

But by reading several versions, you'll see some of these differences between versions and realize that what you thought the scriptures taught may not be what the scriptures taught.

So finish reading your Bible in your current version, then start over with a different version. It'll do ya good.

Three Days and Three Nights

2010-02-10T11:05:00.002-06:00

Someone questioned:

In Matt 12:40 Jesus said, he will be dead for 3 days and 3 nights, like Jonah was in the whale's belly. So if he resurrected on Sat(Sabbath) night, then he would have died on Wednesday evening.

But in John 19:30-42 it is stating as, he died on a Friday, being the day of preparation before the Sabbath. Luke 23:54, Mark 15:42 and Matt 27:62 stating the same.

That doesn't come to 3 days and 3 nights.. Please enlighten.

I believe the best explanation is to realize that the Passover begins and ends with a Sabbath, even if that starting and ending date do not fall on the seventh day of the week.

The week of the crucifixion, the Sabbath referred to, following the day of preparation, was a "high Sabbath" (John 19:31). I like the way the Holman Christian Standard Bible renders this verse:

Since it was the preparation day, the Jews did not want the bodies to remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a special day)....

In other words, this was not an ordinary seventh-day-of-the-week Sabbath, but it was the Sabbath that began Passover. That week had two Sabbaths, one beginning Wednesday night at sundown, and a regular Sabbath beginning on Friday evening at sundown.

Dying on Wednesday at 3pm (when the shofar was blown and the daily sacrifice was offered in the Temple, by the way), Jesus was in the heart of the earth by dark that night. He was in the ground Wednesday night, Thursday night, and Friday night (three nights) and Thursday day, Friday day, and Saturday day (three days), raising after the Sabbaths ended, on the first day of the week, after dark on Saturday. Within hours, while it was still dark, the Mary's came and found the tomb empty.

Milburn Cockrell does a good job explaining it at http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/was-jesus-in-the-grave-for-three-days-and-nights.html

Fix the World

2010-02-10T11:00:00.001-06:00

In Luke 3, three groups (the general crowd, tax collectors, military) come to John and ask him, "What should we do?". In each case, John's answer was based on economics, not "morality". The beginning of the Gospel began as a social, fix-this-world, "focus on one one-another" institution, not as a "suck it up until we get into the next world" club.

Spoiler Alert

2010-02-08T17:28:00.003-06:00

I saw the movie "Book of Eli" this past weekend. If you haven't seen this film, and don't want to read a spoiler, then don't read any farther.

The whole point of the film was to preserve the Bible, which had been virtually eradicated after a global apocalyptic war. At the end of the film, the preserved Bible in written, bound form, was placed on a shelf. On that shelf, just left of the Bible, was a copy of the Torah, and just left of that, was a copy of the Tanakh.

As most of the readers of this blog will know, the Torah is the first five books of the Bible, and the Tanakh is the entire "Old Testament" of the Bible. I found it interesting that the movie makers had sense enough to put these two books on the same shelf as the Bible, but didn't expect movie-goers to catch the plot-hole. I wonder if it was an inside joke, or an oversight.

On a related note, I also watched again the movie "Bruce Almighty". At one point when Bruce was checking the prayers offered to God, he was doing so via a divine electronic email system, and it was not Yahoo!Mail, but rather Yahweh!Mail. How interesting.

Letting the Bible Define Its Own Terms

2010-02-06T08:50:00.004-06:00

In a recent discussion about the meaning of a certain word in the Bible, my opponent kept appealing to the standard Greek dictionaries. I told her that this was a legitimate means of helping to determine the meaning of a term in the Bible, but that ultimately, you have to decide whether you want to accept this human source of definition, or if you're going to let the Bible define its own terms.

In the culture of the Restoration Movement in which I was raised, it was a staple of doctrine to call Bible things by Bible names and to let the Bible define its own terms and to accept the Bible as the only authority in religious matters, and 2 Timothy 3:16-17 was often cited as the proof-text for this way of doing things.

^{2 Tim 3:16} All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, ¹⁷ so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Note that the man of God may be complete (or "perfect" in other versions) without any material other than the God-inspired Scripture.

She could not seem to understand that one could determine the meaning of a Biblical word without appealing to her e-Sword Greek dictionary or some other extra-Biblical Greek dictionary.

So I presented her with the following scenario in hopes of helping her to understand.

Suppose there were NO Greek (or Hebrew, or "Bible") dictionaries anywhere in the world, and no one knew what the word "psalm" means. You pick up a Bible, and read it in its entirety. You get to 2 Samuel 23 and come across the first occurrence of the word (NKJV):

Now these are the last words of David.
Thus says David the son of Jesse;
Thus says the man raised up on high,
The anointed of the God of Jacob,
And the sweet psalmist of Israel:

You go, "Huh? What's a "sweet psalmist"?" Of course you have no dictionary that can help you, because none exist. So you just shrug your shoulders and keep reading. Then you come to 1 Chronicles 16:7-8:

^{⁷ On that day David first delivered this psalm into the hand of Asaph and his brethren, to thank the LORD: ⁸ Oh, give thanks to the LORD!
Call upon His name;
Make known His deeds among the peoples!}And then you go, "Oh-h-h! So a 'psalmist' is someone who writes some sort of poetry or thank-you greeting-card phrase or something!"

And then you get to the very next verse:

⁹ Sing to Him, sing psalms to Him;
Talk of all His wondrous works!

And you think, "Ah, a 'psalm' seems to be a song of praise to God."

And then you get to Nehemiah 12:8:

^{⁸ Moreover the Levites were Jeshua, Binnui, Kadmiel, Sherebiah, Judah, and Mattaniah who led the thanksgiving psalms, ....}
And you realize that some psalms are for praise, and some are for thanksgiving.

And then you get to the book of Psalms, and a light clicks on in your brain: "Ah, got it now. A 'psalm' is a song of praise or thanksgiving or lament or encouragement, etc, centered on God and His works, sometimes involving instruments, sometimes dance, sometimes tears, sometimes laughter, sometimes clapping, sometimes even silence."

You've just now defined "psalm" without recourse to knowing Greek (or Hebrew), and without recourse to any dictionary anywhere, and without recourse to a native speaker of the languages involved, and without recourse to an expert in the culture; you've let the Bible define its own term. If the word had been "flinkermingle", the Bible would still have defined the term without recourse to a "flinkermingle"-defining dictionary.

Now, when you get to Ephesians 5:19 and read that we are to sing psalms to one another, what is your definition of "psalm"? Do you turn to an outside source, such as e-Sword's definition, or do you turn to the Bible to define your term?

Please do not mistake me; I'm not saying that outside sources have no value (I'm a great believer in them); nor am I saying that languages don't change over time, and words don't change their meaning, and that dictionaries do not highlight some of these changes. What I AM saying is that you can't claim to use ONLY the Bible as your source of authority and then turn to outside sources to prove your pet theory.

Let me be explicit: IF you use a Greek dictionary at this point to define the term "psalm", you are NOT using the Bible as your authority. If you're okay with that, so be it. Just be aware of what you're doing, and don't condemn others who stick with the Bible.

The "Old Testament" is Not All Old

2010-02-06T08:40:00.002-06:00

Overheard:

The book of Psalms, David, Law of Moses, the Prophets, are all in reference to the OT which we are not under.

This writer seriously errs here, but it's very understandable: pretty much all of Christendom has taught for centuries this same message, and every Bible you can buy on the shelf at Mardel's or Hastings or the local Bible Book Store emphasizes this incorrect message by their man-made, two-fold division labeled "New Testament" and "Old Testament". But this idea is completely wrong.

The writer above mentioned three portions of the so-called "Old Testament" - "the book of Psalms, David, Law of Moses, the Prophets" (I'm combining "the book of Psalms, David" into simply "the Psalms"). This three-fold division is Biblical; it's how Yahshua divided the Scriptures known in his day:

^{^{Luke 24:44} ...everything written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled.}
(These three divisions, in the Hebrew language, are called Torah, Nevi'im, and Kethuvim, and taking the first letters of these three words we get TNK, which is how we get the term "Tanakh" to refer to the Hebrew Bible.)

So, we have from the very mouth of God (Yahshua) that what we incorrectly call the "Old Testament" is really divided into three sections. Now look at the prophecy of a new covenant, as foretold by Jeremiah:

^{^{Jeremiah 31:31} "Look, the days are coming"—[this is] YHWHs declaration—"when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. ³² [This one will] not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt....}
What covenant does YHWH say will be replaced?

Does he say the Prophets will be replaced? No!

Does he say the Psalms will be replaced? No!

Does he say the Torah will be replace? Yes! It's the covenant made at Mt. Sinai, when the house of Israel was taken out of Egypt, which will be replaced. Not the covenant He made with Adam. Not the covenant He made with Noah. Not the covenant He made with Abraham. Only the covenant He made with Moses.

The scriptures concerning Adam are still in effect: Yahshua based his teachings on divorce on these scriptures. Yahshua did not give us a NEW law concerning marriage. He reached all the way back to Genesis 2 as the basis for his teachings on marriage/divorce. If we are no longer under Genesis 2, then we no are longer bound by Yahshua's teaching on marriage/divorce, because that's "old testament".

The scriptures concerning Noah are still in effect: we are still under the covenant God made with Noah. If not, then the rainbow means nothing; we can expect a globe-destroying flood any day now, because that's "old testament". If not, then we have no authority to eat meat, because that's "old testament". If not, then we have no responsibility to execute murderers, because that's "old testament".

The scriptures concerning Abraham are still in effect: we are adopted into the covenant God made with Abraham. Paul makes this absolutely clear in Galatians 3:

^{^{Gal 3:17}the law [Torah - Kent], which came 430 years later, does not revoke a covenant that was previously ratified by God, so as to cancel the promise.}
He even goes on to agree with Jeremiah, that it is "the law" (Torah) which was temporary:

^{¹⁹ Why the law then? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise was made would come.}
So Jeremiah and Paul agree; it was the law of Moses that was temporary, and which would be replaced with a new covenant. It was the law, given on Mt. Sinai, that was the old covenant.

The Psalms and the Prophets are not part of the old covenant; only the Torah is the old covenant.

We in our modern culture have lumped two of the divisions defined by Yahshua in with the third, and have mistakenly claimed all three to be "old". No, that is wrong. Two of those three are not "old".

A New (Old?) Way to "Do Church"?

2010-02-03T09:40:00.001-06:00

So here's what I want you to do. When you gather for worship, each one of you be prepared with something that will be useful for all: Sing a hymn, teach a lesson, tell a story, lead a prayer, provide an insight. If prayers are offered in tongues, two or three's the limit, and then only if someone is present who can interpret what you're saying. Otherwise, keep it between God and yourself. And no more than two or three speakers at a meeting, with the rest of you listening and taking it to heart. Take your turn, no one person taking over. Then each speaker gets a chance to say something special from God, and you all learn from each other. If you choose to speak, you're also responsible for how and when you speak. When we worship the right way, God doesn't stir us up into confusion; he brings us into harmony. This goes for all the churches—no exceptions.

-- 1 Cor 14:26-33 The Message version of the Bible

We don't do this. Why not? Oh, that's right; The Message isn't a "real" version.

One Cuppers?

2010-01-31T23:34:00.003-06:00

On a discussion list of which I'm a member the question of one cup or multiple cups in the Lord's Supper was raised. Here's what I wrote about it:

As I understand it, the Passover meal (at least in modern times, and probably in Yahshua's time as well), incorporated within it "4 cups" which were specially set aside for certain times of the meal. This phrase does not mean a literal number of cups, but rather a literal number of special significances to the drinking of each person's own individual cup. We'd say in modern parlance, "four toasts".

If memory serves, there were two cups before the main meal and two afterwards, with the fourth and last one serving to close the meal, much like a closing prayer closes most church assemblies in our Western Church of Christ culture. The four cups, or toasts, each have special meaning: "I will bring out," "I will deliver," "I will redeem," and "I will take".

Luke, in chapter 22, refers to two of these four cups, one before the main meal, probably the first one as that serves more as an introduction to the meal, which is implied with Yahshua's comments about being happy to eat the meal with them, and since it's a cup of blessing, and one after the meal, probably the third cup, that of "redemption" -- "I will redeem" -- a cup of blood for a new covenant.

Paul also refers to the "cup after supper", in 1 Cor 11:25.

So Yahshua was not saying, "Take this physical cup and share it amongst yourselves"; he was saying, "Take this cup and participate in it amongst yourselves; I'm not participating in it until the kingdom of God comes".

Each person had his own cup, just as each person had his own plate. But at four times within the meal, everyone drank at the same time in a symbolic "toast" to the meaning of that drink.

There's a LOT of fascinating material in the Passover meal that we non-Jews have missed. For example, three pieces of Matzah bread (crackers) are placed in a three-pocketed cloth, one piece per pocket (think Father, Son, Holy Spirit), and at a certain point in the meal, the middle piece is taken out, broken in half, half is wrapped in a linen cloth and hidden while the other half is put back in the pocket, and after a while, the kids are sent to find the hidden piece. The kid finding it brings it back to Papa for a small redemption (a dollar, or a piece of candy, etc), and then that piece is distributed out to everyone to eat a grape-sized piece.

Tell me you don't see Yahshua's body broken, wrapped in linen, hidden in a tomb for a while, redeemed, and shared by his disciples in the Passover.

It's also interesting to note that Matzah is pierced, and those piercings are in stripes ("he was pierced for our transgressions"; "with his stripes we are healed" - Isa 53:5, NIV, KJV).

Near as I can tell, Yahshua intended for his followers to continue celebrating the yearly Passover, but now, instead of it celebrating the deliverance of Israel from Egyptian slavery, it would celebrate the death of Yahshua and the delivery of his New Israel from slavery to sin and death. But in our withdrawal from Law-keeping and Judaizing, we rode the pendulum too far and have divorced ourselves from a lot of culture that would be enlightening to us and which I believe Yahshua intended us to use for our educational and spiritual growth.

Dividing by claiming to be "of Christ"

2010-01-29T13:09:00.003-06:00

H. Clay M writes concerning 1 Cor 1:10-17:

Here's the text:

10I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. 16(I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else. 17For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Verse 12 What I mean is that each one of you says,

"I follow Paul," or

"I follow Apollos," or

"I follow Cephas," or

"I follow Christ."

13 Is Christ divided? <>End Text

Look at the last group "I follow Christ" Now that sounds good and
that is exactly what the CoC/SOF* was doing . . EXACTLY!

Well in context Paul corrects them, those that say "I follow Christ"
just as much as he condemns the others.

It is WRONG to be divisive. (.) period PERIOD!

It is wrong for "US" in the CoC/SOF to say we are Christ's church therefore we are the only saved.

That is un scriptual and it is arrogant and it is divisive!

Paul wrote the church at Galatia and plainly said who among would NOT enter the Kingdom of God!

Now one would think Hey this is an important text! Let's test ourselves.

Here it is: Galatians 5

18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Why it list those that cause DIVISION!

Even if they claim they follow Christ?

I Corinthians 1 certainly makes that abundantly clear to me!

* CoC/SOF = Church of Christ / Sign Out Front (those congregations that have a sign out front proclaiming "Church of Christ".

Speaking Where The Bible Speaks ...

2010-01-29T08:13:00.003-06:00

Over on the Church_of_Christ@yahoogroups.com Yahoo!Group, Norman wrote:

I believe we will all agree that the *motto*; speak where the Bible speaks and silent where is silent is a good pattern to follow regardless of where it started. That is teaching of the churches of Christ today.

But Wendy wrote a response which I find to be full of wisdom, and I'd like to share it here. She wrote:

The simple matter is that the Bible does not speak. We interpret. And we bring our cultural, educational and experiential backgrounds into the interpreting process.

So what the Bible "says" to a Chinese convert may be very different from what it "said" to a Syrian Christian of the 2nd century, and from what it "says" to an American Christian of the 21st century brought up in a Restoration faith tradition or an Australian recent convert who was raised in a nominally Christian highchurch Anglican South African home (me).

So the ideal of speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where it is silent sounds good on paper; it's a noble ideal. But in practice, it too fails to provide a definitive method for determining "gospel truth". It seems to me that until Christians realize that fallible human logic and interpretation color greatly our understandings of the Bible, we're going to continue believing that "we have the answers and everyone else is wrong", thus dividing the body of Christ, against his very wishes, on various and sundry issues that God never made clear(!) are issues.

Determining Church Doctrine

2010-01-22T11:55:00.001-06:00

I've grown up in (and am still part of) a culture that insists church doctrine should be derived from the Bible; but not all the Bible, but from the New Testament; but not all the New Testament, but from those parts that "apply to us today".

A core part of the methodology for determining what applies and what doesn't is the use of CENI - Commands, Examples, and Necessary Inference.

However, in recent months I've had cause to revisit these basic principles, and I'm not sure they hold up as a reliable means of determining church doctrine.

Commands
The first part of CENI, "Commands", should be the easiest to apply; if God commands it, do it. Yet here are some commands from God that I daresay are not considered binding on Christians today in my church culture.

1 Tim 5:23 - Don't continue drinking only water, but use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.

This command is "tweaked" by explaining that "wine" means "grape juice", and by explaining that the command was specifically for Timothy and not for all Christians. Fair enough, but it's a command in the New Testament that is not considered binding.

1 Tim 2:8 - Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands ....

Of course, if I try lifting my hands in prayer this coming Sunday morning, I would soon find myself in a discussion with the church leaders about my "inappropriate" behavior. So here we have another command which is not considered binding. Interestingly, this is a command that is not only denied as binding, but is actively opposed by many Christians in the name of "expedience". I can't help but recall Jesus' words: "Disregarding the command of God, you keep the tradition of men" (Mark 7:8).

Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thess 5:26; 1 Peter 5:14 - Greet one another with a holy kiss (and similar phrases).

Here we have a command that is not given once, but at least five times. And yet, do we bind it? No, we explain it away.

Mark 10:21 - Go, sell all you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.

This one is explained away as applying only to a specific man in the scriptures, and not to all followers of Jesus. Again, fair enough.

1 Thess 4: 2,11 - [Y]ou know what commands we gave you through the Lord Jesus. ... to seek to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you, so that you may walk properly in the presence of outsiders and not be dependent on anyone.

And yet we seldom hear these commands espoused from the pulpit as binding on Christians. In fact, we tend to encourage one another to "make a splash", if not in our personal/business lives, at least in our evangelistic lives. We seldom hear that it's a requirement that Christians work so that we're not dependent on anyone.

1 Cor 14:1,39 - [D]esire spiritual gifts, and above all that you may prophesy. ... [B]e eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in [other] languages.

This is explained away as applying only to the Christians still living in the "age of miracles", and therefore doesn't apply to us today.

1 Cor 14: 26,29 - Whenever you come together ... [t]wo or three prophets should speak, and the others should evaluate.

In context, this command is also dismissed as belonging to the "age of miracles", and thus we dismiss the principle entirely of having two or three speakers, publicly evaluated by all, replacing it with one paid pulpit preacher, whose word is traditionally not publicly evaluated by all.

The point is not that these are commands we are failing to observe; the point is that the idea that the "Commands" part of CENI is a potentially unreliable methodology for determining what Christians should and should not do, allowing lots of room for humans to "pick and choose" the commands we want to keep and explaining away the others. A "principle" that turns out to be so variable is not really a principle, is it?

Examples
The second part of CENI, "Examples", is also problematic. The idea is that if we see the New Testament Christians doing something, we should be doing it also. Here are some examples however that we do not consider binding.

Acts 2:44,45; 4:32,34; 2 Cor 8:11-14 - Now all the believers were together and had everything in common. So they sold their possessions and property and distributed the proceeds to all, as anyone had a need. ... [N]o one said that any of his possessions was his own, but instead they held everything in common. ... [T]here was not a needy person among them, because all those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet. This was then distributed to each person as anyone had a need. ... But now finish the task [of sharing] .... It is not that there may be relief for others and hardship for you, but it is a question of equality — at the present time your surplus is [available] for their need, so that their abundance may also become [available] for your need, that there may be equality.

How many of us in the church practice voluntary communism? Hmm-mm??

Acts 21:5 - [A]ll of them, with their wives and children, escorted us out of the city. After kneeling down on the beach to pray....

How many churches kneel as a group to pray?

Luke 22:41 - [Jesus] knelt down, and began to pray....

How many individual Christians kneel to pray?

Mark 6:41 - [L]ooking up to heaven, [Jesus] blessed and broke the loaves.

I suspect that if I looked up to heaven during my prayer the next time I led a prayer in the Lord's Supper, I'd again find myself in a discussion shortly thereafter with the church leaders.

Luke 18:13 - [T]he tax collector, [praying], would not even raise his eyes to heaven but kept striking his chest....

Ah, finally, an example we follow. Sort of - we bow our heads and close our eyes, but we don't strike our chest.

So again, we find that just because we find an example of a practice in the New Testament, that doesn't mean we apply it to ourselves as binding. So the "Examples" part of CENI also fails us when determining what we should or should not do as Christians.

Necessary Inference
The last part of CENI, "Necessary Inference", might be okay, except that we often bind the "inference" part on Christians while neglecting the "necessary" part.

For example, it's an inference that each church had a multiplicity of elders in the first century. We see passages like Acts 20:17 -- "[Paul] sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church" -- and conclude that a church had multiple elders.

It's a valid inference. But it's not a necessary inference. What I mean is that it's not the only inference possible. For example, what if "the church" in Ephesus was not a single congregation, but a half-dozen or so house-churches, each with their own pastor/shepherd/elder? Could the passage in Acts 20 still make sense? Yes, it could. In fact, we see a similar situation in the book of Colossians, wherein Paul writes to the saints there, and mentions the church meeting in Nympha's house.

There's an inference that churches had a multiplicity of elders. But there's also an inference that there may have been multiple churches, each with its own elder. Neither inference is necessary.

So What Then?
So if CENI doesn't work reliably, what then? It seems to me that perhaps Romans 14 addresses this issue:

[D]on't argue about doubtful issues. One person believes [this; another believes that]. ... Therefore, let us no longer criticize one another.... I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself. Still, to someone who considers a thing to be unclean, to that one it is unclean. ... Do you have faith? Keep it to yourself before God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves.

2 Timothy 2 also addresses the issue:

[Do not] fight about words. ... Be diligent to present yourself approved to God. ... [R]eject foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they breed quarrels.

The question is, "Which arguments are foolish and ignorant, and which are not?"

Whatever the answer to that question is, it's clear that we "must not quarrel" (2 Tim 2:24), and that we should "[a]ccept anyone who is weak in faith" (Rom 14:1), "bear the weaknesses of those without strength" (Rom 15:1), and "be fully convinced in his own mind" (Rom 15:5) about what he believes.

In other words, my church culture has defended a culture for all my life, a way of doing things, a set of doctrines. But it seems more and more to me that we have created laws where God has not, based on our own logic systems, logic systems that are demonstrably fallible. The basics, according to God-As-Man himself is thus:

"This is the most important," Jesus answered:
Listen, Israel! The Lord our God, The Lord is One. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.

"The second is: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these."

Then the scribe said to Him, "You are right, Teacher! You have correctly said that He is One, and there is no one else except Him. And to love Him with all your heart, with all your understanding, and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself, is far more [important] than all the burnt offerings and sacrifices."
When Jesus saw that he answered intelligently, He said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God."

So, the legalities of burnt offerings and sacrifices and when the Lord's Supper is taken and how many elders a church has and whether women are silent when they sing in the assembly or not or having a kitchen in the building are far less important than loving God with all your being, and treating your neighbor as yourself.

I'm not saying CENI is useless, or bad; I actually think it's a good general principle for determining what Christians should and should not do. But it's not infallible. So don't treat the results you get from this method as infallible.

Creative Tooth Repair

2010-01-20T10:50:00.004-06:00

In the evolutionary mindset, tooth decay due to bacterial action is a normal part of the "survival of the fittest" mentality.

In the creationist mindset however, it is recognized that in the beginning, there was no tooth decay nor plaque nor gum-rot, and the question is raised, "Why not? What prevented these things? Can we restore that state?"

I suspect that in the beginning, bacteria in human mouths functioned as a cleaner of teeth and restorer of tooth enamel. When the Fall occurred, that bacteria "devolved" to become a producer of plaque and tooth-rot.

If we were to put resources into researching how to turn bacteria back to their original purpose, we might just put Crest and dentists out of business. Just think, no more fighting with your kids to get them to brush their teeth; no more need to floss.

I suspect it's possible. But as long as the research dollars are being poured into the labs of scientists who don't believe bacteria ever had such a role and never will, then this suspicion will not likely ever be confirmed.

Philosophical foundations matter when doing science. I believe the wrong philosophical foundation has had a stranglehold on research for the past 50 years, and as a result, I'm still having to floss.

And wear glasses.

Pfft.

Culture or Scripture?

2010-01-19T11:33:00.002-06:00

I was walking across campus today when a thought caused me to question a doctrine I've held for a long time. I got to wondering if I had learned this doctrine from "church", or from the Scriptures.

And I realized that we often hold to doctrines because we've sung these doctrines in our church songs since we were two years old, not because the doctrines are actually taught in the Bible.

Just another good reason to question everything, even dearly-held doctrines.

Arg!

2010-01-08T09:16:00.002-06:00

Being curious how visible my blog is to Google, I searched for "westing peacefully". About four or five hits down, I saw a link that looked odd, so I clicked on it.

Arg.

Apparently someone has set up a screen-scraper bot that just goes and collects random text from random sites and pastes them together on a page that at first glance looks like a real web page.

I was bothered that searching for my blog resulted in a first paragraph that was quite pornographic textually.

What's wrong with people?!

Oh yeah, I forgot; we people are corrupt from conception. (Note, conservative church of Christ preachers: I didn't say we're guilty from conception; I said we're corrupt; there's a difference. See here and here for more.)

As long as we people remain in our corruption, we will do things like create/run this screen-scraper bot (and much worse things as well), which serves no purpose I ken except to tarnish other people's work.

May the Ruach Kadesh* move in the hearts of all persons everywhere, particularly right now the creator of this bot, to draw them unto God. May there be peace on Earth, and good will to all persons.

*Englicized Hebrew for "The Holy Spirit", variously rendered as Ruach Ha'kodesh, Kadesh Ruach, Ruach Ha Kodesh, etc, depending on the writer.