Christianity is a Jewish Sect

Christianity, all the way through to the end of the book of Acts, was a sect of Judaism, not something separate and distinct:

WEB Acts 2:46 Day by day, continuing steadfastly with one accord in the temple ...47 praising God, and having favor with all the people.

Note that the Christians were meeting in a Jewish place, praising God alongside other Jews in this Jewish place, having favor with those Jews, who would not take kindly to having their religion maligned in any way.

Acts 3:1 Peter and John were going up into the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour.

Note that these new Christians still went to Temple at the hour of prayer, like good Jews would do.

Acts 5:42 Every day, in the temple and at home, they never stopped teaching and preaching Jesus, the Christ.

The Christians were still Jews, meeting in the Jewish temple.

Acts 9:1-2 But Saul, still breathing threats and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, 2 and asked for letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

Note that Saul expected to find Christians in the Jewish synagogues.

Acts 10:28 [Peter] said to them, “You yourselves know how it is an unlawful thing for a man who is a Jew to join himself or come to one of another nation, but God has shown me that I shouldn’t call any man unholy or unclean. 29 Therefore also I came without complaint when I was sent for. I ask therefore, why did you send for me?”

Note that until the apostle Peter was given a special miraculous vision, he wasn't going to have anything to do with Gentiles.

Acts 10:34 Peter opened his mouth and said, “Truly I perceive that God doesn’t show favoritism; 35 but in every nation he who fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him. 36 The word which he sent to the children of Israel, preaching good news of peace by Jesus Christ—he is Lord of all....

Note that up until this point in time, Peter was convinced that the message of Jesus was sent only to the children of Israel, and is astounded to realize that it's for non-Jews also.

Acts 11:1 Now the apostles and the brothers who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. 2 When Peter had come up to Jerusalem, those who were of the circumcision contended with him, 3 saying, “You went in to uncircumcised men, and ate with them!”

Note that the other apostles and Christians were shocked that Peter went to non-Jews.

Acts 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life!”

Note that the other apostles and Christians were finally convinced that Christianity was not just for Jews.

Acts 11:19 They therefore who were scattered abroad by the oppression that arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except to Jews only.

And yet some of them just couldn't get beyond the belief that Christianity was for Jews only.

Acts 11:25 Barnabas went out to Tarsus to look for Saul. 26 When he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they were gathered together with the assembly, and taught many people. The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

Note that it wasn't until non-Jews became followers of the Way that a new name was needed to refer to this non-Jewish branch of the sect.

Acts 13:2 As they served the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Separate Barnabas and Saul for me, for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. 4 So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia. From there they sailed to Cyprus. 5 When they were at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the Jewish synagogues.

Note that still, for the most part, Christianity was a Jewish phenomenon; the apostles didn't go to the Greek temples to preach, but to the Jewish meeting houses.

Acts 13:23 From this man’s offspring, God has brought salvation to Israel according to his promise, 24 before his coming, when John had first preached the baptism of repentance to Israel. 25 As John was fulfilling his course, he said, ‘What do you suppose that I am? I am not he. But behold, one comes after me the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie.’ 26 Brothers, children of the stock of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, the word of this salvation is sent out to you.

Note that even though Paul was specifically called to be an apostle to the Gentiles, he still preached in his early years "to Israel", that the salvation was "for Israel", to the children of the stock of Abraham.

Acts 13:46 Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, and said, “It was necessary that God’s word should be spoken to you first. Since indeed you thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. 47 For so has the Lord commanded us, saying, ‘I have set you as a light for the Gentiles, that you should bring salvation to the uttermost parts of the earth.’”

Note that finally Paul starts to get it; Christianity is not just for the Jews!

Acts 15:1 Some men came down from Judea and taught the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised after the custom of Moses, you can’t be saved.” 2 Therefore when Paul and Barnabas had no small discord and discussion with them, they appointed Paul and Barnabas, and some others of them, to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question.

Now Paul has to go back to the other apostles to convince them that the new Gentile believers don't have to "become Jews" to be included in the Way.

Acts 15:30 So, when they were sent off, they came to Antioch. Having gathered the multitude together, they delivered the letter. 31 When they had read it, they rejoiced over the encouragement.

Yay, the Gentiles don't have to become Jews to be saved!

Acts 16:4 As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered the decrees to them to keep which had been ordained by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.

Let's tell all the Gentiles they don't have to become Jews!

Acts 17:22 Paul stood in the middle of the Areopagus, and said, “You men of Athens, I perceive that you are very religious in all things.

Now Paul goes to the Greek temples to preach.

Acts 18:7 He departed there, and went into the house of a certain man named Justus, one who worshiped God, whose house was next door to the synagogue. 8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his house. Many of the Corinthians, when they heard, believed and were baptized.

But Paul still does most of his preaching to the Jews, sometimes converting the ruler of the synagogue.

Acts 18:17 Then all the Greeks laid hold on Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat. Gallio didn’t care about any of these things.

Sometimes these converted synagogue rulers retained their position as synagogue ruler. (This particular one winds up co-writing 1 Corinthians - 1 Cor 1:1.)

Acts 18:26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside, and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

Note that Priscilla and Aquila are still assembling in the synagogue. Cf the Greek of James 2:2, which also shows Christians meeting in synagogues.

Acts 21:21 They have been informed about you, that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children neither to walk after the customs. 22 What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do what we tell you. We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them, and purify yourself with them, and pay their expenses for them, that they may shave their heads. Then all will know that there is no truth in the things that they have been informed about you, but that you yourself also walk keeping the law.

The rumor was that Paul was telling Jews to stop being Jewish; that was a false rumor. In fact, Paul himself continued being Jewish, walking according to the Law of Moses.

Acts 23:6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Men and brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. Concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!”

Paul declares himself, loudly, to be a Pharisee, currently. Not a former Pharisee. He's still very much a Jew.

Acts 24:5 For we have found this man to be a plague, an instigator of insurrections among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.

Note that the enemies of Paul considered his new religion a "sect" aimed at Jews.

Acts 24:14 But this I confess to you, that after the Way, which they call a sect, so I serve the God of our fathers, believing all things which are according to the law, and which are written in the prophets;

Note that the enemies of Paul considered his new religion a "sect".

Acts 25:8 while he said in his defense, “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar, have I sinned at all.”

Paul has done nothing against the Jewish law or temple.

Acts 25:18 Concerning whom, when the accusers stood up, they brought no charge of such things as I supposed; 19 but had certain questions against him about their own religion, and about one Jesus, who was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.

Note that Governor Festus believed Christianity to be about "their own religion", referring to Judaism.

Acts 26:3 especially because you are expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews.

Note that Paul's defense hinges on the customs and questions among the Jews.

Acts 28:7 After three days Paul called together those who were the leaders of the Jews. When they had come together, he said to them, “I, brothers, though I had done nothing against the people, or the customs of our fathers, still was delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans....

Note that Paul had done nothing against Judaism.

Acts 28:22 But we desire to hear from you what you think. For, as concerning this sect, it is known to us that everywhere it is spoken against.

Note that in context, the Jews in Rome had not gotten any letters or info from Judea against Paul, only against his sect.

Justified by Faith

WEB Gal 5:4 You are alienated from Christ, you who desire to be justified by the law. You have fallen away from grace.

There's a huge difference between studying (and even keeping! see Acts 21:21-24) the law and desiring to be justified by keeping that law.

Paul kept the law (as did thousands of other Jewish believers, zealously - Acts 21:21-24), but he did not seek to be justified by that keeping of the law; he was justified by his faith in Christ.

Seeking to be justified by anything other than faith in Christ (whether that be by keeping the Law of Moses, or keeping the sub-set of that Law known as the Ten Commandments, or keeping the supposed law of the Five-Step Plan of Salvation, etc) is to fall from grace which Jesus bestows upon those who trust in him (as opposed to those who trust in their own right-ness in keeping some "law"); this doctrine is the other gospel about which Paul warns four chapters earlier (Gal 1:6ff).

Paul spends chapter two of Galatians explaining how it took a major conference with the elders and apostles in Jerusalem to conclude that Gentiles were not required to keep the law (detailed in Acts 15), because law-keeping (either by Jews or Gentiles) is not the way to justification. Justification is by faith, and justification by law-keeping is "another gospel".

Paul spends chapter three of Galatians explaining that Abraham was justified when he believed, before he acted, and that no man is justified by law, and that trying to keep the law is a curse, because no one can do it (you must live by the rules perfectly or you're a law-breaker; only Jesus did that perfectly, and he became that curse for us). So who are the blessed now? The ones who seek to be justified by law-keeping? No. The ones who are blessed are those who are of faith with the faithful Abraham, who was declared right when he had faith, before he did any right action. (Note that his faith was not a dead faith; it was a working faith, that drove him to do right actions; it was not a faith without works, but rather a faith before works, as opposed to the faith of demons, which has no works other than to make those demons tremble - Jam 2.)

Paul spends chapter four of Galatians explaining how that keeping rules and regulations are merely worldly, "miserable elemental principles", a form of "bondage" (v. 9-10). He tells the Colossians the same thing, but in more detail even (see Col 2:16ff).

Paul then wraps up in chapter five of Galatians, telling his readers to stand firm in liberty, not becoming again entangled with a yoke of bondage; if you keep law, you have to keep all of it. And if you go that route, seeking to be justified by keeping some law, any law, not just the Mosaic Law, you are fallen from grace. The "law" you are to fulfill is this - "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (v. 14). (He repeats himself a chapter later, emphasizing that "the law of Christ" is fulfilled by bearing one another's burdens - 6:2.) Walk by the spirit, not by the law. (He says in another place that we are to serve in the newness of the spirit, not in the oldness of the letter - Rom 7:6; and that his team are servants of a covenant, not of the letter, but of the spirit - 2 Cor 3:6; and that the true Jew is one who is circumcised in the spirit, not the letter - Rom 2:29.)

Paul finishes out his letter in chapter 6 of Galatians by pointing out that even the law-keepers fail to keep the law - 6:13.

Yet even though Paul is adamant that we are saved by faith rather than by law-keeping, he himself walked according to the law (Acts 21:24), and he upholds the law (Rom 3:31), and says it's holy (Rom 7:12) and good (7:16).

Paul makes a huge distinction between keeping the law as something good to keep, and keeping it in order to be justified by keeping it. We, too, should make that distinction.

No More Corruption/Death

When the resurrected Jesus appeared to his disciples::

WEB Luke 24:38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled? Why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 See my hands and my feet, that it is truly me. Touch me and see, for a spirit doesn’t have flesh and bones, as you see that I have.”

Later, the apostle Paul said:

WEB Acts 13:34 “Concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he has spoken thus: ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’"

Elsewhere Paul writes:

WEB Rom 6:9 [We know] that Christ, being raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no more has dominion over him!

Two New Prayer Thoughts

Yesterday I had cause to plead earnestly in prayer to God, and as I did so, two "new" thoughts came to my mind.

• I did not want to pray for "resolve"; I wanted to pray for God's Spirit/Power within me.

If I decide to do something, that is Me doing; but if I have the Power of God within me, if his Spirit is my spirit, mingled, intertwined, then it is God doing it.

It makes no sense to pray to God that I would make my own decision and resolve; it makes sense that I would tell God about it, but not to ask him to "help" me to do it, unless, of course, he's actually involved in helping.

When I ask for help from God, I'm really asking for his Spirit to be active within me, not just for me to resolve to do something myself.

• I wanted to pray to "be a Man".

I wasn't praying to be a bully, or to "take control", or to ignore the needs of others; I was praying to not be passive-aggressive, to not be a whiner.

I tend to be a peace-maker; I want people to be gentle with each other; I'm a great believer in trying to "walk in the other person's shoes", to understand their perspective and their needs and wants, and to be self-sacrificial in meeting those needs/wants.

But I also have needs/wants, and sometimes in being self-sacrificial, I wind up stuffing my own needs/wants, and all that does is allow those needs/wants to simmer beneath the surface. This passiveness of mine eventually erupts in a moment of greater need/want, and I become aggressive, but in an unhealthy way.

The better solution is to "be a Man"; to hear the other person's perspective/needs/wants, but to also express my own perspective/needs/wants, rather than simply stuffing them to deal with them later. (And I need to express them in a manly manner, not in a simpering, whiny way.)

Already I've written way more words on these two issues than what is justified by my as-yet limited understanding of what either of them really mean, but I sense that both of these prayer thoughts are important, and wanted to get them written down in some form before they fall out of my memory/consciousness.

Wearing the Name of Christ

Might I suggest a re-think of what is meant by "wears the name of Christ"?

It has been strong in our Church of Christ culture to think in physical terms, of having the label "of Christ" on our buildings and our web sites and our bulletin letterheads.

But I'm reminded of the second of the Ten Commandments: You shall not take the name of YHWH your God in vain. For years, I took this to mean that we weren't supposed to *use* the "name" in an improper way, such as saying, "Oh, God, this pizza is good!"

The Jews took it that way too, which eventually evolved into their thinking that the name shouldn't be used at all, which is why they then altered the written scriptures to hide the name of YHWH behind the generic term "Lord" (the way most of our printed English Bibles still do).

But since then I've come to believe that it's more like a bride being encouraged to honor her husband's name by living honorably with him; don't take your husband's name in vain by having dalliances with the milkman and the pool-boy; be faithful to the name you have taken.

If you're going to wear the name "of Christ", then behave worthy of the name.

I'm not sure that "wearing the name of Christ" really refers to having "Church of Christ" on the sign out front of your meeting place; I think it refers to having "of Christ" in your everyday behavior.

Restoring the New Testament Church

Which New Testament church should we restore?

The one that was exclusively Jewish, and praised God in the Temple daily wherein instruments were used (Acts 2:46-47), and lived a communistic lifestyle (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32), and didn't have deacons, but having the need, invented the role (Acts 6:1-6)?

The later one that moved out of Jerusalem into the surrounding territories and met in houses (Acts 8:3), wherein they had their prayer meetings at night (Acts 12:4,12), and in synagogues (Acts 19:8-9; 22:19; Jam 2:2), and thought that non-Jews were unclean and were not to be socialized with, requiring a vision and a miracle to get them to accept non-Jews (Acts 10-1, esp 11:3), and that had elders (from amongst mere days-old Christians) appointed for every assembly by a higher authority rather than the assemblies appointing their own (Acts 14:23)?

The still later, short-lived one, that accepted Gentiles, but only if the Gentiles were circumcised and obeyed the rest of the law of Moses (Acts 15:1,5)?

The one shortly after that which called together a multi-church conference, and issued a decree for all the churches (Acts 16:4) to accept Gentiles without them first "converting to Judaism", resulting in two "denominations" within the church of Jesus Christ, one called "the Circumcision" (Gal 2:12), composed of Jews who still kept the law of Moses zealously (Acts 21:20), and one called "the Gentiles" (Gal 2:12), which did not keep the law of Moses (Acts 21:24-25), which though they had different worship practices (Paul even kept Nazirite vows (Acts 18:18), necessitating animal sacrifice and purity rituals at its conclusion (Acts 21:26; 24:18)), were united because Jesus had torn down the middle wall of hostility dividing them (Eph 2:14), even though some of "the Circumcision" kept trying to re-erect that wall (for which Paul publicly scolded Peter - Gal 2:11ff)?

Or perhaps you mean the later Gentile-only church that started turning against "the Circumcision", blaming all of them for what a few of their leaders did, which after the destruction of the Temple, culminated in a post-New Testament exclusively-Gentile church that rejected all things Jewish, not just as un-needed in a Gentile culture, but as sinful, such as Sabbath-keeping or musical instruments in [Temple] worship (the synagogues, wherein the Gentiles learned "church", never had instruments (as a rule)), re-erecting that wall which Jesus had torn down just as "the Circumcision" (in contradiction to the Gospel - Gal 2:14) before them had tried to re-erect?

So when we speak of restoring the New Testament church, just which of these churches should we restore? The oldest, most original, which was exclusively Jewish and worshiped daily in a place where instruments were used and didn't have deacons? Or the latest, which was turning anti-Jewish, re-erecting that wall which Jesus had torn down and headed toward forbidding marriage and the eating of certain foods (1 Tim 4:3), and which had stopped meeting daily? Or something in between those two ends?

And do we try to restore the practice of praying for gifts of the spirit (1 Cor 14:13) and fan the flame of that gift (2 Tim 1:6)), or do we quench the Spirit (1 Thess 5:19) because now we "now know in full" and we have all matured to the unity of the faith (Eph 4:13), therefore such gifts have ceased (1 Cor 13:12)?

I judge that it's just not all that simple to restore the New Testament church, and that if we think we've accomplished that goal (or even can), we may not have thought it through very well.

Legalism

Through Jeremiah, YHWH promised a new covenant that was not to be like the old covenant. The old covenant was a legal system that consisted of rules written down in stone; the new covenant consists of a heart-based relationship:

WEB Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, says Yahweh, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Yahweh. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says Yahweh: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people: 34 and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Yahweh; for they shall all know me, from their least to their greatest, says Yahweh: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.

Many in the church of Christ today believe that God simply traded out one legal system for another, the Law of Christ replacing the Law of Moses. They support this viewpoint by:

• mentioning the "law of Christ" (and yet the only place the phrase is used - Gal 6:4 - it is defined, not as a legal system, but as bearing one another's burdens)
• mentioning the "perfect law of liberty" (James 1:25, and yet two verses later he writes, not a description of a legal system, but that "Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.")
• mentioning the "royal law" (and yet the only place the phrase is used - Jam 2:8 - it is defined, not as a legal system, but as loving your neighbor as yourself)
• pointing out the several uses of the phrase "THE faith" (ex. Gal 1:23), insisting this translates to "the faith legal-system"

However, the New Testament does not contrast the old and new covenants as a legal system vs a different legal system; it contrasts them as a legal system vs a grace system. Example:

WEB Rom 3:28 We maintain therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Many brethren understand the words "works of the law" to refer exclusively to the old legal system of the law of Moses, and feel justified to then conclude that the word "faith" refers to the new legal system.

But Paul doesn't contrast legal system against legal system; he contrasts legal system against faith. He spends much of chapter 2 of Colossians explaining that our new system is not about external legalities such as "don't touch this, don't taste that, keep this holy day, keep that ritual, etc", claiming that these things are "elements of the world". He says elsewhere that he's a minister of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the spirit (2 Cor 3:6).

A "legalist" is someone who finds his righteousness in being right according to how well he keeps the letter of the law. The Pharisees were condemned for their legalism. Jesus did not condemn them for keeping the law; he condemned them for trusting in their own rightness in keeping the legalities.

When we declare ourselves saved (or "right") because we have successfully kept the letter of a legal system (any legal system, including the "Five Step Plan of Salvation"), then we have become legalists.

We are not saved by our own right-ness in keeping the legal system; rather we trust Jesus, who is the only one who ever successfully kept the legal system, to grant to us his right-ness. That right-ness is granted to us, not because we have attained a "passing grade" in keeping the requirements of some legal system, but because we have faith in him.

If you think you're saved because you've attained a passing grade because of what you've done (being scripturally baptized, for example), you're a legalist. Further, you have adopted another gospel than that which the apostles preached. "You are alienated from Christ, you who desire to be justified by the law. You have fallen away from grace" (Gal 5:4).

To be sure, if we love Christ, we will keep his commandments. To be sure, some commandments are "required". But we are not saved by keeping the letter of the law; we are saved by faith in Jesus who kept the letter of the law for us. (And the reverse-angle - if we refuse to keep the commandment, this demonstrates that the "faith" we have is not a saving-type faith, like was Abraham's, but is rather a dead faith, like that of the demons - James 2.)

So to the extent we understand the "requirements", we must strive to keep them. But failure to keep the letter of the law, either through ignorance or weakness or even occasional outright rebellion, will not invalidate our salvation (do your occasionally rebellious teens get disowned? no? because it's about relationship, not the letter of the law); what matters is not trusting in our own right-ness in keeping the law, but in trusting Jesus to be faithful in applying his right-ness to us. It's not about keeping the letter of the law, but the spirit.

If you believe that someone is lost who has the right spirit but has completely missed the letter of the law, then you are a legalist. God does not look at how well you keep the externals of keeping the letter of the law; he looks at what is going on in the heart. When God poured out his Spirit on the Gentiles in Cornelius' group, he testified that he did so because he had already seen into their hearts, that he had been successful in cleansing their hearts by faith, not by their keeping of the letter of any law:

ESV Acts 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. (It was only after this demonstration that Peter commanded they be baptized - Acts 10:44-48.)

"Legally", we are not saved until we have been properly and scripturally converted, including immersion in water in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, and we, having only human eyes with which to see, have no business claiming otherwise, or especially substituting a non-Biblical, man-made legal system of salvation such as the so-called "Sinner's Prayer". But in God's eyes, salvation is not a matter of works, of keeping the letter of the law; it's about faith/commitment/decision - it's a matter of the heart/spirit.

The old covenant was like a business arrangement, wherein each party was committed to keeping the required obligations specified in the covenant. The new covenant is like a marriage, or an adoption, in which each party is committed to each other, regardless of the failures in keeping the "required obligations" of marriage/parenthood/childhood.

Are you in a business relationship with Jesus, or in a family relationship with him?

Those Evil Christmas Trees

I've been in a conversation with someone on-line who claims that Jeremiah 10:2-4 condemns Christmas trees (and by extension, Christmas).

That chapter condemns idols, not Christmas trees (go read the chapter for yourself; it won't take but 2-3 minutes).

Here's my response to him:

Yes, we are to judge righteous judgment; but the scriptures (Rom 14:4-6) specifically state to not judge a brother about keeping one day as more special than any other day.

Your zeal is to be commended; it's obvious you want to please the Lord, and that is an awesome thing. But it should not be an excuse to condemn a brother for doing something the scriptures specifically allow (honoring one day to the Lord more so than some other day).

The kingdom of God is not a matter of what you eat or what you drink or what days you consider higher than others, but of 'doing the right thing' and being at peace with one another and being joyous in the Holy Spirit (Rom 14:17, paraphrased).

Focusing on "regulations" (ESV; "ordinances" in the KJV and WEB) such as "don't touch, don't taste, don't handle", or judging someone in eating, or in drinking, or with respect to a feast day or a new moon or a Sabbath (Col 2:16-23) sounds holy, like you're offering acceptable "worship", but they're the wrong thing to focus on - these things are just "rudiments of the world", shadows of the real thing; these are "precepts of men" (same passage).

When you make rules which God has not made (like "Thou shalt not observe Christmas"), they are mere precepts of men (or "commandments of men" as Jesus put it), and when you teach them as doctrine, you're participating in vain, empty worship (Matt 15:9).

The kingdom of God is not about finding rules buried "between the lines" and then judging brothers for not honoring the rules you've "found"; it's about righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. It's not about keeping the letter of the law, but the Spirit - Paul believes this point is so important he says it over and over (Rom 2:29; 7:6; 2 Cor 3:6).

If you perceive the "letter of the law" to forbid honoring the birth of Jesus on Christmas and using that occasion to fulfill the joy prophesied by the angels, using that occasion to proclaim the name of Jesus to the world, then you can not do so by faith, and you should absolutely not do so. But you should not condemn your brothers who believe they are keeping the spirit of God's will by honoring the joyous birth of his son and reminding the world once a year of the message they would otherwise quickly forget, that God Is With Us.

The New Covenant is Not Like the Old

Members of the New Testament church often treat the New Testament as if it's essentially of the same nature as the old - a system of rules and regulations.

I would encourage such members to hear this one thing: the new covenant is not like the old. So many of us have simply swapped out one legal system (with its laws written on stone, for all to see) for another legal system (with its laws hidden mostly between the lines, requiring just the right love of the Truth and just the right hermeneutic in order to find them). But, the new covenant is not like the old.

The writer of the book of Hebrews quotes a prophecy found in Jeremiah 31:31ff:

ESVm Heb 8:8 For he finds fault with them when he says: “Behold, the days are coming, declares YHWH, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.

And what does it mean to be "not like the [old] covenant"?

The old covenant was a system of rules and regulations, written in stone for all to see, in which you had to keep the letter of the law; the new covenant is a relationship, in which you need to keep the spirit:

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares YHWH: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. [ie. this describes a relationship]
11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ [it's not about head-knowledge]
for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. [it's about relationship]

WEB Rom 2:29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not from men, but from God. [it's about the spirit, not the letter of the law]

Rom 7:6 But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that in which we were held; so that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter. [it's about the spirit, not the letter of the law]

2 Cor 3:6 [God] also made us sufficient as servants of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. [it's about the spirit, not the letter of the law]

The first covenant was about "ordinances of divine service" (Heb 9:1), consisting of "gifts and sacrifices" that are "incapable ... of making the worshiper perfect" (v. 9), consisting of "fleshly ordinances" (v. 10) like "don't touch, don't taste, don't handle" (Col 2:21), don't eat this, don't marry, don't drink that (1 Tim 4:3), don't play this instrument, don't clap, don't observe Christmas. But Jesus has brought us a new covenant, by fulfilling the regulations of the old, and has thus cleansed us, not by our paying the debt which we owed to the law, but by our faith in him who paid the debt which he didn't owe (Heb 9:11ff).

The new covenant, the kingdom of God, is not built around regulations like what you eat or drink, but around doing the right thing and having peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom 14:17). Nothing is unclean of itself (Rom 14:14) -- not eating meats sacrificed to idols, not drinking a little wine with supper, not eating with unwashed hands, not playing an instrument while praising God, not observing (or not observing) a new moon or a Sabbath; these things are just a shadow of the new way (Col 2:16). They indeed appear like wisdom in worship; but ultimately they have no value (Col 2:22).

Once a person begins to grasp that their salvation is not dependent on how well they themselves keep the law (however you define "the law" - as the Ten Commandments, or as the Law of Moses, or as The Law of Christ, or as the Perfect Law of Liberty, or as the Two Greatest Commands, or whatever), but rather on their relationship to the one who kept the law perfectly, life begins to change, and freedom begins to creep in. (But take care, lest your freedom tromp on the scruples of a brother, which is wrong.)

ESV Gal 5:1 For freedom Christ has set us free....

Don't submit again to a yoke of slavery of keeping this rule and that regulation and tithing this and limiting that.

Gal 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Our "whole law" is not about finding hidden rules in the text - don't use instruments; don't drink; take the Lord's Supper every first day of the week; there's nothing wrong with these things. But they are not our whole law. Instead, our whole law is to love one another. And lest you think that's not the case, the inspired apostle Paul repeats himself:

Gal 6:2 Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

And lest you think Paul has missed it, the inspired writer James reiterates this message:

Jam 2:8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well.

James also speaks of true religion; he does not say it's about tithing and keeping certain days holy and worshiping according to these or those regulations; he says it's about visiting orphans and widows in their affliction, and living a clean life (Jam 1:27).

Jesus, when declaring how his disciples would be known, did not say, "By this will all men know you're my disciples, if you have the correct doctrine and worship in the correct way". Rather, he said, "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:25).

And when Jesus separates the sheep from the goats, he does not do so on the basis of who kept what rule, but on how we treat one another (Matt 25:31-46).

Relationship. Freedom. Love.

Not rules, regulations, perfect obedience.

When you get that, perfect love then casts out fear (1 John 4:18). The one who is still afraid he's not "good enough to get into heaven" has not yet been perfected in love (same verse), which is, to say, suffering from "performance anxiety".

At that point in time, you'll be free to praise God with everything you have - your voice, your heart, your guitar, your feet, your hands, your body, your absolute everything. Until then, you'll always have to "ride the brake" in order to make sure you "don't go beyond what is written".

Before closing, let me give one example of this "performance anxiety". Last week we had a baptism; a new brother was added to our number. When he came up out of the waters of immersion, there was a smattering of applause from amongst the witnesses, but the church as a whole frowned on the applause, because "clapping is not allowed". The congregation was "riding the brake" to avoid breaking an unwritten "rule".

The freedom to express joy at a new spiritual birth was squashed because of a "rule" which can not be found in the New Testament. When Peter healed the lame man in Acts 3, this man was not restricted from expressing his joy; he "walked and leaped and praised god"(v.8).

This restriction on expressing joy occurred because we treat the new covenant as if it is like the old, a system of rules and regulations, rather than as a relationship between us and God and others. The new covenant is not like the old, but we have made it such, and in so doing, have created something God did not create.

Blessings.

The First Day of the Week

The following is written in response to a forum-member on Facebook claiming:

The first century church account took the communion on the first day of the week. Didache recorded it.

I'm unaware that the Didache records that the first century church took the communion on the first day of the week. Could you provide a reference, please?

I am aware that the Didache records that the first century church took the communion on "the Lord's day" (14:1 - http://www.paracletepress.com/didache.html), but it's an assumption that "the Lord's day" refers to the first day of the week. It probably so refers, but it is an assumption. (A decent case can be made from scripture (not post-scripture writings) that "the Lord's day" refers to the Sabbath; I don't believe that's the case, but the point is that "the Lord's day" simply isn't defined by scripture; we make assumptions as to what it means.)

The Didache also tells us we should fast on Wednesdays and Fridays (8:1); this is obviously adding to God's word, as there is no Biblical command to do this, just as there is no Biblical command to eat the Lord's Supper on any particular day. To insist there is such a command, or to appeal to post-Biblical writings to insist there is such a command, is to add to God's word just as surely as commanding fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays.

Regardless of what the practice was in 40 A.D., or 70 A.D. or 99 A.D., or 325 A.D., the Bible simply never makes a command to eat the Lord's Supper with any particular frequency on any particular day at any particular time of the day in any particular manner. The best we have in the Biblical text is:

• the inauguration, which took place in the midst of a full-blown meal which took place annually, at night-time, re-purposing some of the elements of that meal (Mark 14:, esp v. 12, 17, 22-25) 
• a hint of daily eating (Acts 2:42, 46) 
• another eating, probably daily (otherwise how would it help the needy?), again taking place in the midst of a full-blown meal, probably at night-time, which also served as a "feed the needy" meal, with no mention of singing or giving, which Paul says wasn't really the Lord's Supper because they weren't waiting for one another before stuffing their own faces (1 Cor 11:17-34). 
• a hint of possibly weekly observance at night-time either on a Saturday or Sunday pre-midnight evening or on a Sunday or Monday post-midnight, pre-dawn morning as part of an all-nighter assembly, with no mention of singing or giving (Acts 20:7-12).

Some people also try to marry 1 Cor 16:2's reference to "the first day" as being indicative of the disciples meeting on this day, which may be true, but is not certain; another likely possibility is that Paul is referring to the Roman Market Day, when the population went grocery shopping, and when it would make sense to "lay by him in store" (putting in storage, not putting into a church treasury for paying the church salaries/bills) a portion of your funds, not for groceries, but for the year-long collection being made for the poor saints back in Jerusalem.

MacMullen (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1087739?seq=9#page_scan_tab_contents) writes about the Roman Market Days in Italy:

What is certain from the evidence, however, is the importance and completeness of the arrangements developed in this section of Italy for the exchange of goods between the rural population on the one hand, and urban and itinerant merchants on the other hand. Efficiency required that they be brought together in large numbers, whether once every seven, or eight, or fourteen, or thirty days, or less frequently still. To this end a variety of other purposes were adopted: assemblies of worship, spectacles and entertainments, elections, or assizes. We may assume throughout the empire such successful answers to the demands of commerce as can be seen so clearly on the map of Campania.

In other words, there were regular market days, presumably not just in Italy but throughout the empire, which were not only for buying groceries but also provided an opportunity for regular worship assemblies to arise.

Less authoritative, Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar#Nundinal_cycle) also speaks of the Roman Market Day:

The Romans of the Republic, like the Etruscans, used a "market week" of eight days, marked as A to H in the calendar. A nundinum was the market day; ... The nundinal cycle formed one rhythm of day-to-day Roman life; the market day was the day when country people would come to the city, and the day when city people would buy their eight days' worth of groceries. ... The nundinal cycle was eventually replaced by the modern seven-day week, which first came into use in Italy during the early imperial period, after the Julian calendar had come into effect in 45 BC. The system of nundinal letters was also adapted for the week. For a while, the week and the nundinal cycle coexisted, but by the time the week was officially adopted by Constantine in AD 321, the nundinal cycle had fallen out of use.

And as mentioned above, there is the assumption that the phrase "Lord's day" refers to the first day of the week, but also as mentioned, that's just an assumption, with no Biblical evidence whatsoever to support it, and in fact, is in contrast with the general Biblical usage of the Sabbath as being the "day of the Lord", as in Isa 58:13:

If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath,
from doing your pleasure on my holy day,
and call the Sabbath a delight
and the holy day of the Lord honorable;
if you honor it, not going your own ways,
or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly;

Gentile Conversion in the Great Commission

I just had a thought:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep Your Marriage Oath

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

However, once the treaty was made, it was made. When the leaders of Israel realized their mistake, they said,

Josh 9:19 “We have sworn to them by YHWH, the God of Israel, and now we may not touch them.20 This we will do to them: let them live, lest wrath be upon us, because of the oath that we swore to them.”

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

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

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

Ask of God

When God was first telling the Israelites that he would lead them into the land of Canaan, he specifically told them to not make treaties with the inhabitants of that land or to allow them to stay in the land:

ESV Ex 23:30 "Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you have increased and possess the land. 31 And I will set your border from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the Euphrates, for I will give the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you shall drive them out before you. 32 You shall make no covenant with them and their gods. 33 They shall not dwell in your land, lest they make you sin against me; for if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you.”

Later, during that process, one group of Canaanites, the Gibeonites, deceived the leaders of the Israelites by coming into the Israelites' camp dressed in worn-out clothing, carrying old, dry, crumbly bread, patched sandals, etc, and claiming to be from a distant country (with whom the Israelites were allowed to make treaties).

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

My friend Brad points out the real problem here: verse 14:

So the men took some of their provisions, but did not ask counsel from YHWH. 15 And Joshua made peace with them and made a covenant with them....

Brad summarizes the lesson for us:

Always ask God before you do anything. And then listen.

A wise man, my friend Brad.

Meanings of Names in the Genealogy of Genesis Chapter 5

I just saw an article which intrigued me, so I did my own research on the claims of the article. I googled "meaning of names [$NAME]", where[$NAME} was replaced by each of the names of the patriarchs as listed in the genealogy of Genesis chapter 5, and here are the results I scribbled down:

• Adam - of the red earth, red, man, earthman
• Seth - appointed, anointed, compensation
• Enosh - mortal
• Kenan - buyer, owner, possession
• Mahalalel - the blessed God
• Jared - ruling, commanding, coming down, he who descended
• Enoch - dedicated, trained
• Methuselah - death, man of a dart, he shall send his death, when he is dead it shall be sent
• Lamech - a strong youth, to make low, striker down, wild man
• Noah - comfort, long-lived, repose, rest

It's interesting that if you take the numbers in this genealogy at face-value (and I do), Methuselah died in the year of the Flood. Could it be that his father, in naming him, prophesied by God's Spirit that when Methuselah died, the Flood would hit the earth? Interesting.

And just as interesting....

Look at the story told by the name-meanings:

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

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

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

Jesus' response was:

Mary has made the right choice, and it will not be taken away from her.
(HCSB Luke 10:42b).

It's also interesting that the first people Jesus assigned to proclaim the good news that Jesus was alive, and to men at that, were women, one of whom, a different Mary, specifically called Jesus "Rabbi" (John 20:16).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two final points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cain's and Abel's Offerings

What we know about God's response to the offerings of Cain and Abel is that

YHWH had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. -- Gen 4:4-5

and

By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. -- Heb 11:4

Hebrews tells us that it wasn't the offering that was acceptable or not, but the person, and that Abel made his offering by faith, and that the acceptance of the offering was to show that the person was acceptable. The converse of that is that the non-acceptance of an offering shows that the person is not acceptable.

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

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

"Programs" in the Church

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

Here was my response:

I don't know....

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thought Experiment concerning Praise Teams

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

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

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

Would that be unscriptural?

What if each of the leaders was given a microphone?

Would that be unscriptural?

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

Would that be unscriptural?

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

Would that be unscriptural?

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

Would that be unscriptural?

Just some thoughts....