The question was asked, "In Colossians 2:14 what was nailed to the cross?".

Here's the verse:

WEB Col 2:[14 ]wiping out the handwriting in ordinances which was against us; and he has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross;

Paul often says very similar things in his different letters, repeating himself in slightly different words, like the "sing" passages in both Ephesians and Colossians.

He's likely saying the same thing in Col 2:14 that he says in Eph:

WEB Eph 2:[14 ]For he is our peace, who made both one, and broke down the middle wall of partition, [15 ]having abolished in the flesh the hostility, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man of the two, making peace; [16 ]and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, having killed the hostility thereby.

Whatever he's talking about in Ephesians is probably what he's talking about here in Colossians.

To be specific, the Gentiles were unwelcom in the Commonwealth of Israel, unless they submitted to the law of Moses and the Jewish customs (compare Acts 15:1,5).

That requirement has now been taken out of the way, because the full keeping of the law which Jesus accomplished is applied to "believers" (as opposed to failure-prone "Law-keepers", who, at 99.9% success are still failures):

WEB Rom 10:[4 ]For Christ is the fulfillment of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

(That righteousness includes baptism, by the way, which Jesus underwent in order to fulfill all righteousness.)

The requirement to keep the law has been taken away; Gentiles can now be grafted into the root, to become full members of the Commonwealth of Israel, by following in the steps of the faith of Abraham, which he had while having not yet been circumcised (Rom 4:12).

The "New Wine" in Acts 2

WEB Acts 2:13 Others, mocking, said, “They are filled with new wine." 14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and spoke out to them, “You men of Judea, and all you who dwell at Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and listen to my words. 15 For these aren’t drunken, as you suppose, seeing it is only the third hour of the day.

The Koine Greek word behind "new wine" is gluekos.

Think "glucose sugar".

I believe a more accurate rendering for this word is "sweet wine" rather than "new wine".

I have heard arguments that this "new wine" is not alcoholic, but I believe these arguments are driven by a mistranslation of the Greek into English.

Since new wine is not alcoholic, then this word gluekos must refer to non-fermented wine, or so the argument goes.

The arguments I've heard are two:

1) The argument is made that the mockers' mocking is merely an insult that means, "These tea-totallers are drunk on grape juice."

and

2) The argument is made that in the one other place where the word is used, in the Septuagint version of Job 32:19, it is somehow to be understood as non-fermented wine.

Concerning the first argument, Peter plainly says the mockers suspected the disciples of being drunk; he does not treat their mocking as a sarcastic insult; he treats the mocking as a legitimate accusation, and his response is appropriate: Drinkers tend to drink into the night, and then sleep it off in the morning. Yes, there could be exceptions to that (as there are to most rules-of-thumb, such as with many of the Proverbs), but regardless of the accuracy of Peter's response, his response is to treat the charge as a serious charge, which he plainly denies.

Concerning the second argument, here's the text from Job:

WEB Job 32:19 Indeed my belly is like wine that has no vent; it is ready to burst like new wineskins.

“New” wine, that is, “grape juice”, does not cause a new wineskin to be ready to burst. Rather, the readiness to burst is a result of grape juice having fermented, causing gasses which blow up the wineskins, like a helium bottle filling up a balloon. New wineskins have the capacity to stretch (which is why you don’t put new wine into old wineskins – Mark 2:22); the only reason the skins would be ready to burst is because they have stretched to their limits, because of the gasses created by the fermentation process. Job’s belly is ready to burst; it’s full of gas; it’s not in the beginning stages of fermentation, but in the later stages.

If the word is translated properly, as "sweet wine" rather than as "new wine", wine that has fermented to the point of being ready to burst its container, there is no longer any need to explain away the apparent alcoholic nature of "new wine".

Why the Record of the Early Church is Silent about the Use of Instrumental Music

The earliest Christians met in the Jewish temple daily, praising God and having favor with all the [non-converted Jewish] people.

These non-converted Jewish people used instruments in their temple. The Christians were right there, thinking they were nothing more than Jews who had found their Messiah, keeping the Mosaic law zealously (Acts 15:1,5; 21:20). There's no hint these Jewish Christians were saying a word against the musical instruments. They felt no need to move their assembly away from the Jewish musical instruments; they met regularly right there in Solomon's Porch (Acts 5:12), right near the "band". It seems to simply have been a non-issue with them.

As the message moved away from Jerusalem and its temple, it moved into the Jewish synagogue. (James specifically refers to the Christian assembly as "your synagogue" - James 2:2 - although most English translations hide that from you.) The synagogue did not have musical instruments. But this was not a result of any command from God (there is no such command in scripture), but rather of tradition. The synagogue seems to have developed during the Babylonian Captivity (without any "authorization" from God; yet Jesus approved by his regular habit of attendance - Luke 4:16). During this captivity, the Jews, when asked to sing a song about their homeland, replied that they were too sad to sing, so they put away their instruments - Psalm 137. (Note that the Jews in this passage associated instruments with "sing", such that "singing" and "harps" were essentially synonymous - they couldn't sing, so they put away their harps. This is the way God uses the word "sing". He never uses it in such a way as to exclude instruments.)

When the church moved away from the temple and into the synagogue, the church moved away from instruments, at least in the common public gathering. Note again that this was not the result of any command from God, but simply a matter of man-made tradition. The last word God had said on the matter of public praise singing was to use instruments; there is no record afterword to not use instruments. There is no record (or evidence) that the early Christians had been told that God's last instruction about how to "sing" had been rescinded. The converts on Pentecost in Acts 2 had been praising God with instruments that morning; by evening, according to our traditional brotherhood doctrine, such praise was sin, yet there's no record or evidence of an apostolic message turning instrumental praise into sin.

When Gentiles began to be welcomed into the Christian family, they did not "learn to do church" in the musical-instrument environment of the temple, but rather in the non-musical-instrument environment of the synagogue. A mere 20 years later, the emerging twenty-year-old leaders of the Gentile churches had known nothing all their lives except non-instrumental regular assemblies. It was this *tradition* that became the norm.

Eighty, a hundred, two-hundred years later, by the time any church leaders got around to writing about instruments one way or the other, they identified their non-instrument tradition as being distinct from both the pagan and the Jewish traditions. They never give reasons of "the apostles teach this" or "Scripture says this"; they give human-logic reasons - "We want to be different from the pagans" (Ex., "lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews" - Victorinus, 300 A.D.). These writers, thinking God now hates all things Jewish (a doctrine completely at odds with the New Testament, but bolstered by the destruction of Jerusalem and her temple), condemned all things Jewish, including the instrumental psalms. They did not do so on the basis of God's word, but on the basis of human reasoning.

It's interesting that when we look for actual writing condemning instruments, we don't find it in scripture, but in these post-NT writings. And although we refuse to cite these writers about sprinkling as baptism, or about a pre-Pope "President" of the elders, etc, we cite as gospel their condemnation of instruments.

The early reformation writers were against instruments for pretty much the same reasons: they had grown up non-instrumental (which therefore must be the "old ways"), and they reasoned that God hates Jewishness, therefore he hates instruments. Thomas Aquinas, in the mid-1200s, wrote, "But the Church does not make use of musical instruments, such as harps and psalteries, in the divine praises, for fear of seeming to imitate the Jews." (The more common rendering is, "Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaize.")

Even though writers from the second-century to the present have condemned musical instruments in the praise of God, such condemnation is never based on actual words from God or the apostles, but on human logic. The actual words from God neither condemn, nor change his last word on the matter. Any such change must be derived from human reasoning.

And if human reasoning is the standard, then reason just a moment: Did Paul write:

"Teach one another using psalms, except for the ones God has given to you, recorded in scripture, given for our learning of how to be right, given to make us complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work?"

Or did Paul write:

"Teach one another using psalms"?

Which of the two versions above adds to the word of God?

If we are to teach one another with psalms, without adding any restrictions to what is meant by "psalms", then let me teach:

WEB Psalm 150:Praise him with tambourine and dancing! Praise him with stringed instruments and flute!

(it's often claimed that the Psalms are "Old Testament"; but that's a result of how our modern-day printed Bibles divide up the scriptures; the scriptures themselves make a distinction between "the old covenant" and "the psalms" and "the prophets" (Luke 24:44, words of Jesus); even Paul points out that the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis, 430 years older than the "old covenant", was not superseded by the temporary "old covenant" of Exodus-Deuteronomy.)

That's incredibly uncomfortable for many in the Church of Christ. But it's the result of human reasoning that is more consistent with scripture than the human reasoning that converts "psalms" into "psalms except...".

The lame man healed by Peter "danced" for joy in the place where the Christians assembled (Solomon's Porch - Acts 3:8-11), and there is no record of anyone telling him to sit down to be "decent and in order".

Our anti-instrument position is not supported by scripture, but rather by human reasoning and tradition. I think its a fine tradition (I prefer it), but I object when this tradition is turned into a commandment of men and then taught as doctrine.

A Word Against Respondus Lockdown Browser

Respondus sells a special locked-down web-browser that is used by schools to allow their students to take on-line tests without the students having the ability to web-browse to other locations than the test-site, to prevent cheating/etc.

That's all well and good. But their installer routine is primarily designed for a one-install-at-at-time setup, which is fine for the individual student installing the Lockdown Browser on that student's personal computer.

But for a lab manager who might need to install the product on 20 or 100 or 15,000 computers, a one-on-one installer ain't gonna work.

So they provide two alternative methods for a "push" installation.

You'd think that's good, right?

Except the lab manager has to jump through hoops to make it work.

I've been working four days - four! - to get a simple uninstall script to work.

The install is relatively easy (although the onus is still on the lab manager to do the programming work, instead of the company doing it).

But when a year later that version goes out of date and refuses to work, Respondus doesn't have a simple update mechanism; you have to uninstall the old version and then install the new.

And no matter what I do (and I'm a very smart guy), I've been unable to get their instructions to work to uninstall the old version.

But the core point here is this (and I'm going to yell saying it):

YOUR CUSTOMERS SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO WRITE PROGRAMS OR JUMP THROUGH HOOPS TO USE YOUR PRODUCT!

Because of the pay-wall mentality of Respondus and the difficulty they make it to speak to them, they will never hear this message of mine. And since few readers read this blog, few people will ever hear it. But for those who do, I highly recommend that you do not purchase/use Respondus products until they learn that their in-house programmers should do the programming necessary for their customers to use their products.

Intro to the Book of Acts

The study of The Book of Acts is always worthwhile.

It seems to me that Acts actually begins earlier than Acts, in the book of Luke itself. And it is, indeed, a continuation of Luke. It might even be more appropriately called 2 Luke.

As you may be well-aware, the last few verses of Luke 24 closely mirror the first few of Acts 1.

But in Luke 24, and other relevant passages, there are a few details that enlighten our understanding of Acts.

The Disciples Thought That the Kingdom of God = the Kingdom of Israel

Whatever the disciples understood about the kingdom of God and the role of their Messiah, as the book of Acts opens, they still thought the kingdom was about a restoration of the political fortunes of the physical nation of Israel:

WEB Luke 24:21 But we were hoping that it was he who would redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened.

We see this same thought from the Eleven in Acts 1:

WEB Acts 1:6 Therefore when they had come together, they asked him, "Lord, are you now restoring the kingdom to Israel?"

It's of note that Jesus did not correct their misunderstanding, but left them (and Luke's readers) believing the kingdom would be restored to physical Israel in the future.

The Resurrection Is a Physical Resurrection, not Spiritual

Some might object that “flesh and blood” cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven, but this phrase appears to be an idiom referring to corruptible flesh and blood. The same phrase, “flesh and blood”, is also used in Heb 2:14, where it seems to refer to a deathly condition which humans were not created for but were made to share in. At any rate, Jesus stressed that he was flesh and bone, a real re-animated “It’s really me” which the disciples had known before he was executed, that ate and drank with them over a period of forty days after his resurrection. And it was this physical Jesus who went into heaven, not leaving a rotting physical body behind.

WEB Luke 24:2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb. 3 They entered in, and didn't find the Lord Jesus' body.

The angels stressed that he was living, and thus not in the tomb, explaining the absence of a body:

WEB Luke 24:5b They said to them, "Why do you seek the living among the dead? 6 He isn't here, but is risen.

Jesus stressed:

WEB Luke 24:39 “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."

and then:

WEB Luke 24:43 He took [food], and ate in front of them.

All this was in response to the disciples supposing they were seeing a spirit (Luke 24:37).

This body was more than just physical though; it could appear in a different form (Mark 16:12), teleport from one location (Luke 24:31) to another, through locked doors (John 20:19), and fly into heaven without aid of space-craft or -suit (Acts 1:9). His body, perhaps like Adam's before he sinned, causing it to become subject to corruption, is physi-spiritual.

When Jesus ascended into heaven, he took his raised, physi-spiritual body with him. It was not left behind, and ever since he was raised from death, it was impossible for him to again die (Rom 6:9), or for his body to see corruption (Acts 2:31).

The Disciples Worshiped Jesus

The word “worship” (Greek proskenuo) is a verb that specifically refers to bowing or bending or prostrating one’s self in a submitting manner, as you may have seen Muslims do on their prayer rugs as they bow until their face is on the ground; this is the literal meaning of proskenuo. It does not refer to having a feeling (adoration), nor does it refer to any other action, such as singing or praying or giving or making a burnt-offering. Whereas those things can be a result of a worshipful spirit, they are not, in and of themselves, “worship”; they are different verbs from “bowing”, just as “running” is a different verb than “talking”.

Technically you can not “worship in song” (although you can “praise in song”); you can only “worship” in submissive bowing; that’s what the word means. Nor are you worshiping because you are singing; you may be (and should be) worshiping while you are singing, but in so doing, you are doing two different things at the same time; singing is different than worshiping; they are two different verbs. You can wrap your brain around this a little better if you’ll get in the habit of mentally substituting the Greek meaning of the word, something like “bow submissively”, whenever you come across the English rendering of “worship”. For example, “They bowed in submission to him”. This bypasses the influence and bias of the translators and gets you closer to the Greek as God originally inspired it.

It is also instructive to note that Jesus said that submissive bowing was no longer a matter of physically bowing in the location of this church-house on this mountain or in that church-house across the street, but in the location of one’s spirit, in a real, truthful manner. And when should you not be bowing submissively, in truth, to God, in your spirit? Mowing your lawn is not worship; those are two different verbs. But while mowing, your spirit should be bowing submissively to God. You can, and should, worship and mow at the same time, just as you can, and should, sing and worship at the same time. Conversely, you can not hold up a bank and worship at the same time; while these are still different verbs from one another, they are also mutually exclusive from one another.

These disciples knew that their worship was to be reserved for YHWH God and him only. They had come to understand Jesus in a new way, as had Thomas:

WEB John 20:28 Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"

Accordingly,

WEB Luke 24:52 They worshiped him....

.

Jesus Teaches a Four-fold Division of the Bible, not a Two-fold One

Our modern-day Bibles are divided into two main divisions, the Old and New Testaments. But that's not how Jesus divides the scriptures. He divides them into:

1. "My words" (the NT)
2. The Law (or Torah)
3. The Prophets (or Nevi'im)
4. The Psalms (or Ketuvim, or Writings (which includes just about everything else that's not the Torah or the Prophets))

The three divisions of what our Bibles erroneously label as "Old Testament" are sometimes referred to by the initials of their Hebrew names, TNK, and pronounced as TaNahK (tah-nahk).

The old testament (or better, in more modern English, old covenant) is not all 39 books of our "Old Testament", but only that portion between about Exodus 12 and the end of Deuteronomy.

• The promise to Abraham came 430 years before the old covenant was established (Gal 3:17).
• The definition of marriage taught by Jesus (Matt 19:4-7) was not his fiat declaration, but an appeal to scripture that was contrasted with that old covenant (Matt 19:7-8), and which was unaffected when that old covenant became of none effect.
• The old covenant was written and sealed in a book, to which nothing could be added, a book that was lost for years and found again later during the days of the Kings (2 Kings 22). Obviously then, the events of this losing and finding could not be part of that sealed covenant.
• The old covenant was made when God led his people out of Israel, according to God's own definition hundreds of years later when he spoke through Jeremiah (Jer 31:31ff). Obviously then, the words of Jeremiah, coming hundreds of years later, were not part of that old covenant.
• The psalms, while collected into book form while the old covenant was in effect, were not themselves part of that covenant, and like the creation definition of marriage before it, were unaffected when that old covenant became of no effect. In fact, the psalms are used often in the NT as authoritative teaching material, such as in Acts 1, and we are even told to use psalms in our teaching of one another (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16).

This usage of the phrase "rightly divide the word" is commonly used as I have used it here, but the reader should be aware that this usage is not what is meant in 2 Tim 2:15. But this incorrect usage serves my point, so I'm taking the liberty to use it as many of us have understood it for generations.

When we divide our Bibles into two divisions, we fail to "rightly divide the word".

The Holy Spirit, in Various "Measures"

One might remember that the Greek word for "breath", pneuma, is the same as that for "spirit". Although the passage below is not from Luke, it's interesting to read:

WEB John 20:22 When he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit!"

In doing this, Jesus is declaring that his air, his breath, his spirit, is the Holy Spirit, and that he is giving a portion of this Holy Spirit to the disciples. Jesus goes on to tell them that in not many days, they will be baptized in the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5).

This baptism in the Holy Spirit was different, at least in amount, than the giving of the Holy Spirit when Jesus breathed on them. I'm not confident we can say it was different in type. The miniscule amount of radiation you'd get from standing next to a microwave oven is much smaller than what you'd get standing in the core of a nuclear power plant, but it's the same type. It's the same radiation, but different doses, with vastly different results. Likewise, the Holy Spirit you have as a Christian is the same as what the disciples had on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, but in a different dose.

It's instructive to note that when one is baptized in water, they get thoroughly inundated, being submerged completely in the water. But they don't stay submerged, or even wet. Baptism changes their status permanently, but it changes their state only for a short while; very soon, they become dry.

Likewise, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, poured out on those disciples, changed their status permanently, but didn't necessarily change their state; by and large, their ability to speak in tongues was something that happened to them "at the beginning", as Peter relates years later (Acts 11:15).

Promise, What Promise?

Jesus tells the disciples that they will receive the promise of the Father. He says it's the promise they've already heard of from him (Acts 1:4). In John 14, 15, and 16, Jesus promises to send to them a Counselor, the Holy Spirit, after he leaves them, who will both remind them of what he had taught/said (14:26), and inform them of what is coming (16:13). Now just before he leaves them, he speaks of a promise of the Father, in essentially the same breath that he speaks of them being empowered from above (Luke 24:49) and being baptized in the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5).

The disciples, however, seem to be associating this promise with the restoration of the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6). Paul later speaks of being on trial for holding to the hope of the promise  made by God, a hope for which "the twelve tribes" were working earnestly in order to obtain (Acts 26:6-7).

Between these two times (just before the Ascension, and years later at one of Paul's trials), in Acts 2, Peter seems to associate the promise with more than just the pouring out of the Holy Spirit and the speaking in tongues, but also with the restoration of peace and freedom and prosperity to Israel, and also with a salvation of a remnant. He quotes from Joel 2, which speaks of all these things. It seems that few Christians realize that Acts 2:39 is a continuation of that quotation from Joel 2. In his speech, Peter refers to receiving the Holy Spirit, and then to "the promise [which] is to you and to all whom God calls", followed by a reference to being saved. All these points come from Joel.

Peter had Joel in mind, and he knew his quotations would cause his listeners to think of Joel.

It would appear then that Peter understood this promise to be the whole package mentioned by Joel: the restoration of Israel, and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on all, and salvation for all who are called by God.

Having said that, it should be stressed that the text simply isn't clear as to what this promise is.

Welcoming the Gentiles

When Jesus told the disciples that they would be his witnesses to all nations (Luke 24:47; Matt 28:19; Mark 16:15; Acts 1:8), this was revolutionary. In Jewish thinking, "the Nations", that is, everyone who was not Jewish, had no part in the coming restoration of the Israelite nation, and no part in the coming Messianic age (except as subjects), and no part in salvation. But here Jesus was telling his disciples that repentance and remission of sins in his name is for the whole creation, not just for the Jews. The disciples didn't get it yet; they didn't even start to get it until years later, in Acts 10, and some time later still Peter still needed a public scolding to remind him of this new acceptance of the Gentiles.

Even more revolutionary, Jesus said nothing about circumcising these Gentiles, these non-Jews, but only mentioned baptizing them.

Had the disciples realized at this point what Jesus was saying, about welcoming non-Jews into the kingdom, they likely would have been overwhelmed.

A New Gospel Message

Reading through the Gospel accounts we see several "Gospels" taught by Jesus.

The Gospel of the Kingdom

When Jesus began his ministry, he preached the good news ("Gospel") that the kingdom of God had arrived. Israel considered this as good news, because they likely understood this as the fulfillment of a promise from God to restore to Israel her "rightful" place as a nation free from foreign influence, and even more, as the world power. Their understanding would have made this not good news to "the Nations" (non-Israelite/Jewish nations), who would be defeated/crushed by this Kingdom of God. This good news according was only preached to Israel, not to the Gentiles:

WEB Matt 15:24 But he answered, “I wasn’t sent to anyone but the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

and

WEB Matt 10:5 Jesus sent these twelve out and commanded them, saying, “Don’t go among the Gentiles, and don’t enter into any city of the Samaritans. 6 Rather, go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 As you go, preach, saying, ‘The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!’"

This good news of the kingdom arriving was the first "Gospel" which Jesus preached.

The Gospel of Physical Redemption

The first public sermon by Jesus, which Luke records as the beginning of his ministry, announced good news to the poor, the broken-hearted, the captives, the blind, the crushed (Luke 4:16-21).

This good news of healing the physical ills of society was also an early "Gospel" preached by Jesus.

The Gospel of Spiritual Redemption

Even when people mistreated the Messiah, his response was not retaliation against them, but to say, "[T]he Son of Man didn't come to destroy men's lives, but to save them" (Luke 9:56).

It seems the devil also expected the promised Messiah ("the oil-anointed Appointed One") to be a political figure, as one of his temptations of Jesus was centered around such.

It would seem that early in his ministry, Jesus was hinting that the Messiah, the Son of Man, might have something to do with the non-Jewish nations, in that one of his first offensive (to the Jews) statements pointed out that Elijah ministered to non-Jews when there were plenty of Jews around needing help (Luke 4:23ff).

This affinity for the Gentiles was heightened when Jesus sailed to the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee and spent time at a Gentile city there.

Luke, in his first book, points out that Jesus associates with sinners, not "churchy" people, and is offensive to the standard Jewish "churchiness", challenging their views about the Sabbath, and blessing the poor and sad and down-trodden while woe-ing the well-to-do "in" folks.

This good newsof healing the spiritual ills of society was an early "Gospel" preached by Jesus.

The New Message of the Gospel of the Remission of Sins

Now, on the cusp of the arrival of the promised new covenant, Jesus announces a "Gospel" of a different sort, the good newsof repentance and remission of sins in his name.

WEB Luke 24:45 Then he opened their minds, that they might understand the Scriptures. 46 He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem."

This remission of sins was not truly available via the blood of bulls and goats (Heb 10:4), but only via the blood of the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29).

The Gospel That Gentiles are Welcome

As mentioned above, just before his ascension, Jesus tells the disciples that his salvation of Israel also includes the Gentiles. Later, Paul expands on this, saying that this good news was preached to Abraham, but yet was a mystery hidden throughout the ages until the first century:/p>

WEB Gal 3:8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the Good News beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you all the nations will be blessed.

and

WEB Eph 3:4 ...[Y]ou can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ, 5 which in other generations was not made known to the children of men, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit, 6 that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of his promise in Christ Jesus through the Good News...".

and

WEB Col 1:26 [T]he mystery which has been hidden for ages and generations ... has been revealed to his saints ... which is Christ in you...".

and

WEB Rom 14:24 ...[M]y Good News ... which has been kept secret through long ages, 25 but now is revealed ... is made known for obedience of faith to all the nations...".

The Gospel That There is a Resurrection

This is the good news that most people think of when asked to define “the Gospel”, although they usually stop their definition after the resurrection of Jesus,without including the good news of the resurrection of the rest of us.

WEB 1 Cor 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which 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 five hundred brothers at once, most of whom remain until now, but some have also fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all, as to the child born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also. ... 20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead. He became the first fruit of those who are asleep. ... 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death. ... 52b For the trumpet will sound and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable body must become imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 But when this perishable body will have become imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then what is written will happen: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” 55 “Death, where is your sting? Hades, where is your victory?” ... 57 [T]hanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul says at one of his trials that is it this very message for which he was on trial:

WEB Acts 23b "Concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!”

The Original Disciples Never Stopped Being Jews

This is an important point, one which many post-first-century Christians miss (or refuse to see).

For a week after Jesus ascended, and continuing on for years thereafter, the disciples were continually in the Jewish temple, praising and blessing God (Luke 24:53). The normal Temple activities, especially the feast-day activities in the first few days of the church's beginning, were going on in this temple wherein the very first church of Christ assembled and praised God, including the burning of incense, instrumental music, and animal sacrifices. These disciples felt no need to remove themselves from these activities.

Later New Testament texts affirm that these disciples still kept the law of Moses zealously, as well as all the Jewish customs, and that Paul himself, decades after his conversion, walked according to the Law, kept Nazirite vows, ended those vows with animal sacrifices, participated in temple purification rituals, and proclaimed himself to be a Pharisee (speaking in present, not past, tense), and that he was arrested while trying to prove that he was not teaching the Jews to stop keeping the law of Moses or their customs (Acts 8:18; 21:17-end of Acts).

As Jews, they considered the Seven Feasts of Israel to be significant. Those feasts bear a closer look.

Feast of Passover, the First of Seven Feasts

In first-century Judea, the Passover Feast had undergone some changes from how God had originally instituted it. Originally the lamb was to be slain by families, and eaten in homes (Ex 12:3ff). Hundreds of years later, the slaying of the lamb moved to the Temple courts, to be done by the priests (cf Ezra 6:17). Hundreds of years later, there was a mix of these two, with those who kept Passover in the homes (such as Jesus and his twelve) eating their Passover meal after dark as the Passover day was starting in the evening, and those who kept Passover at the Temple (such as the ultra-religious Pharisees and the Sadducees) eating it at the close of the Passover day about 24 hours later. This is why you see hints in the NT of Jesus eating the Passover before he was arrested (Luke 22), and his arrestors being wary of getting "dirty" and thus being unable to eat the Passover after he was arrested (John 18:28).

Over the next few years, the Holy Spirit would enable the disciples to realize that Jesus is our Passover lamb (1 Cor 5:7), having been sacrificed on the day of Passover, and that he was the fulfillment of the first of the Seven Holy Feast Days of Israel.

Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Second of Seven Feasts

The next day after Passover was the beginning of the second, unrelated feast, the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The first and last days of this seven-day week were "high" (or "special") Sabbaths (Ex 12:16), which may or may not have fallen on Saturday, the normal weekly Sabbath. It was the first of these "high Sabbaths" (John 19:31) that compelled the Jews to ask Pilate to take down the bodies from the crosses. Two days later was the regular weekly Sabbath, and Jesus then rose from the dead on the following day, the third day of burial, and the first day of the week, our Sunday.

When Jesus broke bread later that day, it was unleavened bread, being as it was the middle of the week of that feast. Over the next few years, the Holy Spirit would enable the disciples to remember that Jesus had said he was the bread of life, sinless (without "leaven"), and they would consider him to be the fulfillment of the second of the Seven Holy Feast Days of Israel.

Feast of First Fruits, the Third of Seven Feasts

That resurrection day wasn't just any Sunday; it was the "next day after the Sabbath" (Lev 23:11) during the week of Unleavened Bread, marking the Feast of First Fruits. Over the next few years, the Holy Spirit would enable the disciples to realize that Jesus was the firstfruits of resurrection (1 Cor 15:20,23), the fulfillment of the third of the Seven Holy Feast Days of Israel.

This is where the book of Luke wraps up, and where the book of Acts begins.

Feast of Pentecost, the Fourth of Seven Feasts

Just forty-seven days later would be the next, the fourth, of the Seven Holy Feast Days of Israel. Forty of these days are spent by the disciples in further training with the Messiah after his resurrection. Jesus leaves the disciples just seven days shy of the Feast of Pentecost, after telling them to wait in Jerusalem, when not many days hence they would be clothed with power from on High (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:5).

Note that on the first Pentecost, when the Law of Moses was inaugurated, the event was attended by fire and loud noises. In Korah’s rebellion, about 3000 souls were removed from God's people.

On this Pentecost in Acts 2, when the Law of Christ (a prophet like unto Moses) was inaugurated, the event was attended by tongues as of fire and the sound of a rushing wind. About 3000 souls were added to God's people.

Just For Completeness - the Last Three Feasts

Although not really very relevant to the book of Acts, it just seems wrong to mention the first four feasts without completing the list of all seven.

As mentioned above, the fourth feast was the Feast of Pentecost. Jesus fulfilled all four of these on their respective days of observance. Although no one knows the day or hour of Jesus' return, one can't help but wonder if the last three feasts will see a similarly-timely fulfillment.

The Feasts of Trumpets

Keep your ears tuned for the sound of a trumpet.

The Day of Atonement

There is coming a day of atonement, the salvation of Israel, who although currently enemies of the good news (so that we Gentiles could be brought into the family), are still God's elect, because that's the irrevocable promise God made out of love to the fathers of Israel; they're currently disobedient, but they too will be shown mercy. God's ways are inscrutable. (Rom 11)

The Feast of Tabernacles

We groan to be clothed with our new, eternal, tabernacles (1 Cor 5:1ff).

The Corinthian Collection for the Saints - by guest writer Lucas Necessary

A chronological timeline of giving reveals a somewhat different view of giving than what I was traditionally taught.

• A.D. 44 — The Coming Famine

Prophets from the Jerusalem church pay Antioch a visit. One of them named Agabus prophesies of a great famine that will encompass the entire Roman world. The Jerusalem church is in poverty and will be devastated by the coming famine.

Upon hearing this, the believers in Antioch begin laying up a collection of money to relieve their brethren in Jerusalem. Each person gives according to his ability, in proportion to his prosperity. The church selects Barnabas and Saul to bring the money to the elders in Jerusalem.Acts 11:27-30

• A.D. 45-48 — Judea Suffers Famine

Historically, Judea suffered famine at this time.

• A.D. 46-47 — Jerusalem Gets Relief from Antioch

Saul, Barnabas, and Titus graciously hand the collection over to the Jerusalem elders. (Titus was with them as a representative of the Antioch church.)Acts 11:30; Galatians 2:1

The three Jerusalem apostles request of Saul and Barnabas that they continue to remember the poor saints in Jerusalem Galatians 2:9-10

• A.D. 51 — A Church Planted in Corinth

Paul plants the Corinthian church. He works among them and evangelizes the city for a total of eighteen months.

• A.D. 53 Summer — Paul Departs Corinth for Ephesus

He sets sail across the Aegean Sea, taking Priscilla and Aquila with him. On their way, they stop at a little town seven miles east of Corinth called Cenchrea. Cenchrea is the seaport of Corinth. After reaching Ephesus, Paul sails to Caesarea and from there he visits the church in Jerusalem. He greets the Jerusalem church and returns to his home base in Antioch of Syria where he rests.

• A.D. 54 Spring — The Jerusalem Relief Fund Begins

While in Antioch, Syria, Paul decides to begin the Jerusalem relief fund. This is a collection campaign taken from among all the Gentile churches that Paul planted to relieve the chronic poverty of the Jerusalem Christians. Paul does this to mend the rift between the Hebrew and Gentile believers. He sends a letter to the churches in Galatia, telling about the relief fund and gives specific instructions to them on how to begin collecting for it. We do not have this letter, nor do we know exactly when Paul told the Galatians about the relief fund.1 Corinthians 16:1 (Also see Romans 15:25-27)

• A.D. 54 — Paul Writes a Letter to Corinth (from Ephesus)

This letter is lost to us. Paul explains to the Corinthians his desire to have a Jerusalem relief fund and tells them he will visit them after he leaves Ephesus. He will then visit the churches in Macedonia and return again to Corinth, after which he will take the relief fund to Jerusalem in Judea. He sends this letter with Titus. While in Corinth, Titus helps the Corinthian believers to begin collecting money for the Jerusalem relief fund. Titus leaves and returns to Ephesus.2 Corinthians 1:15-16; 8:6

• A.D. 55 Spring — Paul Writes 1 Corinthians (from Ephesus)

In chapter 16, he goes over his instructions for collecting the Jerusalem relief fund. He then gives the church his new travel plans, which had changed from before. Instead of traveling from Ephesus to Corinth, then to Macedonia, and then back to Corinth as he first planned, he will travel from Ephesus to Macedonia and then make one long visit to Corinth.

• A.D. 57 June — Paul's Trip to Macedonia

Paul is plotting his next move. He plans to leave Ephesus and visit the churches in Macedonia (Philippi, Thessalonica, and Berea) and Corinth. He then plans to bring the relief fund from these churches to Jerusalem, after which he plans to visit Rome. Paul sends Timothy and Erastus ahead of him to prepare for his arrival in Macedonia.Acts 19:21-22

Paul leaves Ephesus and heads for Troas and then to Macedonia. Once in Macedonia, he encourages the three Macedonian churches (Philippi, Thessalonica, and Berea), exhorts each of the churches to continue collecting for the Jerusalem relief fund, and boasts in the example set by the church in Corinth...for they have been zealous in laying up for their collection for the past year.2 Corinthians 9:2

Paul finds Titus in Macedonia with good news from Corinth but Titus also informs him that they have slacked off in collecting money for the relief fund.2 Corinthians 8:6-11

• A.D. 57 Between June and Winter — Paul Discredited in Corinth, Writes 2 Corinthians (from Macedonia)

The Jewish "super apostles" try to discredit Paul in the eyes of the Corinthians by telling them Paul is exploiting them by means of a supposed relief fund.Mirror-Reading 2 Corinthians

Paul writes 2 Corinthians (from Macedonia) and encourages the church to resume their collections for the Jerusalem relief fund. He urges Titus to visit the church along with another brother "whose fame in the gospel has spread to all the churches" (probably Luke) to help the Corinthians complete the collection. Titus and this brother willingly accept Paul's appeal.2 Corinthians 8-9

• A.D. 57 Winter — Paul Visits Corinth

Paul leaves Macedonia and visits the church in Corinth for the third time. He spends three winter months with the church. Paul is pleased to learn that the Corinthians have received his last letter, and they have completed their collection for the relief fund.2 Corinthians 8:6ff

Paul's eight coworkers join Paul in Corinth and bring him the collection for the Jerusalem relief fund from their respective churches. The men make plans to accompany Paul to Jerusalem to deliver the relief fund.Acts 20:1-6

Paul writes Romans (from Corinth). He intends to go to Jerusalem—before he travels to Rome and then to Spain in the west—in order to deliver the relief fund.Romans 15:22-25

• A.D. 58 Spring — Paul Arrives in Jerusalem

Paul and his company arrive in Jerusalem. The church receives them gladly. They appear before James (the Lord's half-brother) and the Jerusalem elders. Paul greets them and testifies about what God has done among the Gentiles through his ministry. He then hands the relief fund to the elders. The elders rejoice and give glory to God. Acts 24:17

Since Luke never mentions the relief fund in Acts and Paul does not mention its effect in his "Captivity Letters" (the epistles he wrote after he was imprisoned in Rome), it is possible, but not certain, that the fund did not have the kind of effect that Paul wanted it to have—namely, the uniting of Jewish and Gentile churches.

Killed While Headed To Be Baptized?

We've all pondered the question:

What about the person headed to the river to be baptized, when a tree branch falls on his head and kills him? Is he saved?

Well, he didn't complete the act of obedience, but he had the faith that led him to try to complete the obedience.

We see the same thing with Abraham, in sacrificing his son Isaac. Abraham didn't complete the act of obedience, but he had the faith that led him to try to complete the obedience.

James says that Abraham was justified by his works, even though Abraham didn't complete that work of obedience. Paul explains that it was Abraham's faith that justified him.

The believer who doesn't complete the work of obedience of being baptized, who has the faith that leads him to try to complete that obedience, is likewise justified by his faith, and he is justified by his works, even though he didn't complete that work of obedience.

Originally published at:
https://kentwest.blogspot.com/2019/08/killed-while-headed-to-be-baptized.html

The Denominational Nature of the First Century Church of Christ

The "true church" of the first century *was* divided into different branches over opinion.

The two broadest divisions were the Circumcision Church (the thousands of Jewish believers who still kept the laws of Moses, including Paul - Acts 21:20ff) and the Uncircumcision Church (the Gentile believers, who Paul taught should not be influenced to keep the law of Moses). The Holy Spirit deemed this two-fold division as "good" (Acts 15:28), provided that both divisions remained eager to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, being one body, having been united when Jesus tore down the divisive wall of "rules-keeping" (Eph 4, 2).

Smaller divisions occurred in Corinth. These divisions were not acceptable to the Holy Spirit, not because they were the result of different opinions, but because they distracted loyalties from Jesus onto other rabbis. Still, even though this type of division was condemned, Paul referred to these various "denominations" collectively as the church of God, as saints, as sanctified, and as being part of all believers calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, both theirs and ours (1 Cor 1, esp v 2).

As specifically to division over opinions, Paul says in several places (cf Rom 14 & Col 2:16ff) to let every one have their own beliefs about gray areas, such as which day we should keep holy, or which foods/drinks we can consume, etc. These are not kingdom matters. Kingdom matters are the internals, not the externals.

Jesus allows for much more variety in how we express the externals than many of us seem to allow. The very first church of Christ praised God daily in an environment where musical instruments were used and animal sacrifices were made and incense was offered up, making Nazirite vows requiring purification rituals and animal and burnt-hair sacrifices, where a healed man was free to jump and holler within the assembly as he praised God, with no one feeling the need to speak against or remove themselves from any of this. The later churches of Christ, being more Gentile and removed from the central hub of Jewishness, looked far less Jewish. We have modeled ourselves after these later churches, and then try to re-erect that wall of rules-keeping that Jesus died for to tear down, only we turn the rules around to match our understandings.

Dividing from other believers because they don't see things "our way" does not honor Jesus; it dishonors him.

Originally published at:
https://kentwest.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-true-church-of-first-century-was.html

Two Into One

Have you ever noticed that in the Great Commission, Jesus tells the eleven to go to the uttermost parts of the earth, which is a hint that this Messiah thing is bigger than Judaism?

In fact, Jesus specifically says, "Go to all the nations", which as most of us recognize, means "non-Jews".

This was revolutionary.

Further, when Gentiles converted to Judaism, they had to be circumcised and immersed, but Jesus says nothing about circumcising them, saying only to immerse them. This dovetails exactly with what the Holy Spirit revealed in Acts 15 when the Pharisee Christians were still insisting on both circumcision and immersion.

This, too, was revolutionary.

And Paul continues the meme, that Gentiles are grafted in, that the dividing wall has been torn down, that Peter's racist attempt to re-erect that wall was not in accordance with the Good News, that both the Circumcision Christians and the Uncircumcision Christians were now one body, united in spirit in the bond of peace, while still having different practices.

Originally published at:
https://kentwest.blogspot.com/2019/07/two-into-one.html

"'I've changed my mind. But I'm not telling you; you'll just have to figure it out yourself."

On the morning of the Acts 2 Pentecost, everyone mentioned in Acts 2 knew that God had established that he wanted to be praised in song accompanied by instruments.

Then, by lunchtime, according to our brotherhood's longstanding doctrine, God had changed his mind about that.

Yet there's not a single word mentioning that change.

And no one mentions any controversy that a new message of "Stop using instruments! They're now sinful!" would have generated. Certainly the Jews who weren't yet converted would not appreciate being told they were now sinning, and the freshly-converted Jews surely would have had some issue with being told they had to stop using instruments.

Yet we have concluded that God changed his mind between 8am and 10AM that Pentecost morning about how he wanted his praise music conducted.

Notice that we don't get that conclusion from any statement in the text; we get that conclusion from the silence of the text.

We have decided God no longer wants what he specifically said he wanted, because he hasn't repeated himself that he still wants it.

And then we divide, and condemn, because some people don't understand that God's silence about changing his mind means he has definitely changed his mind.

Originally published at:
https://kentwest.blogspot.com/2019/07/ive-changed-my-mind-but-im-not-telling.html

Repent or Else

I'm not entirely sure that the two "repent or else" statements by Jesus in Luke 13 weren't political rather than religious statements. Here's the first. Notice how the topic opens with political action.

Luke 13:[1 ]Now there were some present at the same time who told him about the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. [2 ]Jesus answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered such things? [3 ]I tell you, no, but unless you change your mindset, you will all perish in the same way.

Doesn't that sound like a warning against having a politically rebellious attitude, especially since they would perish "in the same way" (that is, by the hands of the Romans)?

And here's the second. Think of the towers around the temple compound that originally served as a Hebrew last-line-of-defense fortress/refuge, and later as garrisons for Roman soldiers policing the compound. As a Hebrew fortress, the Romans could have torn it down to get to Jewish rebels; as a Roman garrison, the troops housed in the tower could have "fallen" on their enemies. Notice that in either case the victims were "offenders", not "sinners" as in the first case.

[4 ]Or those eighteen, on whom the tower in Siloam fell, and killed them; do you think that they were worse offenders than all the men who dwell in Jerusalem? [5 ]I tell you, no, but, unless you repent, you will all perish in the same way.”

Is Jesus telling his listeners to repent in the same way John told his listeners to repent, a moral, spiritual, religious repentance, or is Jesus saying, "If you don't want Rome to come destroy you, you better change your thinking"? Or maybe he's tying Roman destruction to the peoples' moral mindset, the way so much of their scripture repeatedly warned of God using foreign nations to "day of the Lord" rebellious Israel?

At any rate, it just seems maybe we're using this passage out of context to support our "Repent" step.

Thoughts on Transgenderism

My friend, Lucas Necessary, wrote the following.

======

I shared the following article about a male-to-female transgender athlete. I consider this to be a part of the war on women, but in a much newer way, and starkly more deleterious. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/3/cece-telfer-franklin-pierce-transgender-hurdler-wi

Below are my thoughts. These represent a mere fraction of what informs my view, and I hope that I present them not stridently, but with some gentleness, and in a way that, should you disagree even most emphatically, is not angering. I also hope that it might be understood that I detest injustice; I will go to bat for anyone who is being oppressed, as I am able, because I highly value the human life, and have been helped in the past by those whom I have only hurt. 

Transgenderism is a troubling and, as Dawkins would say, seemingly "memetic" thing. That is, once it entered into the public consciousness, it spread in a manner that is almost viral. It is also associated with a high-rate of co-morbidities. According to the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center,

"30 percent of transgender youth report a history of at least one suicide attempt, and nearly 42 percent report a history of self-injury, such as cutting. The study also discovered a higher frequency of suicide attempts among transgender youth who are dissatisfied with their weight." ["Suicidality, Self-Harm, and Body Dissatisfaction in Transgender Adolescents and Emerging Adults with Gender Dysphoria. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior" (19 AUG 2016)]

So, before I mention anything else, I need to be up-front and say that being vicious, cruel, and unloving is simply not needed, nor is it profitable. There is a tendency to simply lose perspective, and to become human steamrollers, covered in spiked words and fueled by bile. This is not what any of us are called to do, nor should we behave so unbecomingly. Every life should be regarded as having amazing potential, no matter how much we disagree with its current state. That said, examining ideas carefully and with charity can be helpful in considering a portion of the population that is seemingly statistically worse-off. We must always be vigilant to tear down ideas, but not people.

At the most fundamental level, I think that encouraging gender transition is not only damaging, but also represents a profoundly troubling view of the human body and mind. Under this view, the body may become a persistent and seemingly damaging impediment to the mind, as one sees the two as entirely disconnected. Broadly speaking, there are three views of the mind-body interaction in this regard. They can be construed as,

A. The body provides guidance as to who one (the mind) is and how one lives one's life.
B. The body is disconnected from the mind and provides no guidance, but may act as an impediment to the mind/spirit.
C. There is no such thing as the will or mind, and such is an illusion. (This is the terminus of atheistic thought, as I've noted before.)

Transgenderism seems to fall along the lines of view "B" above. The body has no guiding force in one's life; it is a mere collection of cells; an allocation of atoms that, in some cases, are seen as having given one a collection of 50% of the wrong chromosomes. It causes a person to ask,

"Why should my body, my identity as male or female, have any voice in my moral choices, what I do sexually? Why should my chromosomes determine in any way who I am?” More specifically, Jessica Savano, a male-to-female model, commented,  “Why are you even looking at my penis anyway? I am a woman!” Jessica remarks on Kickstarter,

"Jessica's mission lies in helping people love themselves and break free from dogma and mediocrity and to live a life of true fulfillment and Joy."

Yet it seems that with the memetic spread of transgenderism, true fulfillment does not result. How can it? At the most basic level, it's a view that is thoroughly disrespectful to the human body, which says, "No, my body is not my authentic self."  And so, the implication is that all that counts really is my mind, feelings, and desires.

But consider the desires. A person wishing to transition to a different gender often attempts to model the exterior, classic appearance of the other sex as well. That is, one denies that gender is based on exterior genitalia or chromosomes, but, when transitioning, still desires to mimic the exterior of the other sex (upon, which, remember, we are saying that gender is not based).

How can one have true fulfillment when one knows that, no matter the external change, one's external genitalia have been altered? That, no matter what, one's skeletal structure is different than that of what one wishes to be? That one's entire chromosomal makeup is 50% "incorrect." It is a creeping thorn in the flesh that one can deny, but of which one can never truly be rid.

It seems to me that we have a number of different options. We can encourage people to take atheism to its terminus, in which there are no actual choices or free will, and in which case, none of this matters. We can teach people that their DNA—the information that makes them, them—is not only faulty, but that their bodies are not their authentic selves, and that this must be challenged, altered, and trod upon.

Or we can teach people to embrace and love the bodies they have been given; to align the mind and body in harmony. A memetic spread that appreciates the body of the authentic self might perhaps have a population wherein the following is not true:

"30 percent of transgender youth report a history of at least one suicide attempt, and nearly 42 percent report a history of self-injury, such as cutting. The study also discovered a higher frequency of suicide attempts among transgender youth who are dissatisfied with their weight."

There is much more that we should all examine, and ultimately, it is my firm conviction that we need to decide if there is anything such as the mind/spirit, or if determinism is fully sound.

With love,

Luke

Grace/Faith vs Law-Keeping

Paul never contrasts Law-of-Moses law-keeping with Law-of-Christ law-keeping; he contrasts law-(albeit usually of Moses)-keeping with grace/faith.

IOW, the contrast is never between two legal systems; it's between a legal system and a grace/faith system.
 
When Paul wrote Gal 2:21, he specifically had in mind the Law of Moses, as that's what was poking him in the face over and over. But I think the *context* of Gal 2:21 makes it clear that he wasn't *just* talking about the Law of Moses; as he writes in the next chapter (3:21b), if any legal system could make alive, it would be the law of Moses.

In addition, Paul thrice, and James once, outlines the principle that if you're going to be justified by keeping law, you have to keep ALL of that law. It doesn't matter what law it is:

WEB Gal 3:10b For it is written, “Cursed is everyone who doesn’t continue in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them.”

Gal 3:12 The law is not of faith, but, “The man who does them will live by them."

Rom 9:5 For Moses writes about the righteousness of the law, “The one who does them will live by them.”

James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law, and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.

So if you seek to be justified by keeping some system of law, any system of law, you have to keep every jot and tittle. And if that's the route you choose, then you are no longer on the path of grace, the path of Christ, but rather you're on the path of law-keeping (at which you'll fail):

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

The true law-keepers now are not those who are circumcised (or not), or who keep certain holy days (or not), or refuse to eat certain meats (or who do), or sing without instruments (or do), or keep the Lord's Supper every Sunday morning (or Saturday night), or (dare I suggest it?) who has been properly immersed (or not); the true law-keepers are those who fulfill the law, not in letter, but in spirit:

Gal 5:14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Rom 10:4 For Christ is the fulfillment of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

James 2:8 However, if you fulfill the royal law, according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well.
 
This contrast between grace/faith and any sort of legal system is the entire thrust of Paul's letter to the Galatians. The "different gospel" of which he speaks in chapter one is not a different name on the sign out in front of our assembly building, or a different understanding of what is a "pastor", or how many cups we can have in the Lord's Supper, or whether women must be 100% silent in the assembly, or 90%, or the same percent as anyone, according to decorum and propriety and submission to one-another; it's the seeking salvation by keeping a set of rules. This is Paul's theme throughout.

Paul has nothing against keeping the law, even the law of Moses (he himself walked according to the law of Moses, even to the point of animal sacrifice in the Jewish temple after having undergone Temple purification rituals, to end his Jewish Nazirite vow - Acts 21ff - a law which he "upheld" - Rom 3:21). What he objects to is *justification* via that law-keeping - *any* law-keeping. That's the "other gospel which is not another".

This is why he is able to say, "don't worry about holy days and eating this and touching that; these things look like good religion, but they're useless in ascertaining what your heart is doing. These things are just external elements of our world, shadows, not the real thing" (Col 2:16ff). It's why he's able to say, "It's okay to come to different conclusions on all these external things; just get along!" (Rom 14). It's why he's able to say, "Jewish believers can be Jewish, and Gentile believers can be non-Jewish - the two are now one, despite the external differences, because in Christ, the wall has been torn down, and now there's one body, not two, so be eager to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, regardless of your differences" (Eph 3-4).

The specific law spoken of in Gal 2:21 was indeed the law of Moses, but the principle, as seen by both the immediate context, and the context of much of Paul's writing, is of *any* legal system, as opposed to grace/faith.

Originally published at:
https://kentwest.blogspot.com/2019/06/gracefaith-vs-law-keeping.html

Google Docs Desperately Needs Styles

Yes, Google Docs has Heading styles, which can be modified, but:

1) they can't be used as character styles

2) you're limited to just the few styles provided

3) styled paragraphs using heading styles then show up in the Navigator and Table of Contents, etc, making these features useless.

Google Docs desperately needs styles.

(LibreWriter is such a better word processor than Google Docs or Microsoft Word, but LibreOffice.org doesn't maintain an online version (which is needful to move from computer to computer while having access to a centralized document repository), and there are "issues" with the third-party online versions I've tried (https://www.rollapp.com/home and https://www.offidocs.com/index.php/libreoffice-file-manager-online).)

As much as I like LibreWriter, the sharing features and access-from-anywhere feature of Google Docs sometimes makes it the better option. But it sure is a weak word-processor. (And Microsoft Office365's offerings just make me feel dirty.)

Google Docs desperately needs styles.

Originally published at:
https://kentwest.blogspot.com/2019/05/google-docs-desperately-needs-styles.html

A Biology Experiment

On my drive to work today, a thought crossed my mind.

Since our bodies have more viruses/bacteria than own own cells, we are not really individuals; we're biomes.

I wonder if a married couple sharing their biomes become similar in part because of the shared biome.

So I thought of this experiment:

Find two volunteers (a male and a female, of similar age), who know nothing of one another.

After verifying that neither has a communicable disease, the experimenter would act as an agent to share their biome with each other as much as possible: mouth biome, face biome, genital biome, hand biome, torso biome, hair biome, etc.

After a period of time (three months? a year?), bring the couple together into a common living arrangement for a short while (a week?) and observe how they get along, and whether they have similar habits, etc.

I'm not sure yet how best to do this, how to have a control group, etc, but I think it has potential to be a very interesting experiment.

Originally published at:
https://kentwest.blogspot.com/2019/05/a-biology-experiment.html

Concerning the "Crux of Christianity"

WEB Mark 12:29 Jesus answered, “The greatest is, ‘Hear, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one: 30 you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’This is the first commandment. 31 The second is like this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these. [Matt 22:]40 The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”

32 The scribe said to him, “Truly, teacher, you have said well that he is one, and there is none other but he, 33 and to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

34 When Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from God’s Kingdom.”

It's not about whole burnt offerings and sacrifices, or about what day is our "worship day", or how many cups we have in the Lord's Supper, or whether your body sways in the final verse of "Just As I Am"; it's about our relationship with God, and with one-another.

Jesus has repaired our relationship with God; we need to repair our relationships with one-another.

Here's a sampling of what God wants and doesn't want from us:

WEB Amos 5:6 Seek Yahweh, and you will live; ... 7
You who turn justice to wormwood, and cast down righteousness to the earth: ... 11 Therefore, because you trample on the poor, and take taxes from him [while you live high and mighty in fancy stone houses] ... how many your offenses, and how great are your sins—you who afflict the just, who take a bribe, and who turn aside the needy in the courts. ... 14 Seek good, and not evil ... 15 Hate evil, love good, and establish justice in the courts. ... [As it currently is,] 21 I hate, I despise your feasts, and I can’t stand your solemn assemblies.22 Yes, though you offer me your burnt offerings and meal offerings, I will not accept them; neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat animals. 23 Take away from me the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps. 24 But let justice roll on like rivers, and righteousness like a mighty stream.

No matter how perfect our solemn assemblies may be on paper, if our relationships are sour with one-another, he hates our assemblies.

Jesus said this:

WEB Matt 5:23 “If therefore you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has anything against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

Relationship-repairing trumps being at church on Sunday morning.

And remember in Matthew 25, when the son of Man separates the "sheep" from the "goats". Does he make the separation based on their doctrinal beliefs? On their allowing of women to speak in assemblies? On their teaching concerning the so-called "Rapture"? No. He separates them based on how they treated one another.

And James tells us what pure religion is:

WEB Jam 1:27 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.

James also tells us how to fulfill the Royal Law:

WEB Jam 2:8 However, if you fulfill the royal law, according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well.

Paul tells us how to fulfill the Law of Christ:

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

YHWH tells us what it is to know him:

NIV Jer 22:16 He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?” declares the LORD.

and what it is that he requires:

WEB Micah 6:8 He has shown you, O man, what is good. What does Yahweh require of you, but to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?

Over and over the message is justice, mercy, burden-sharing, freeing from oppression, healing - it's not "Can we observe Christmas?" or "Is one sip of alcohol going to send me to hell?"

Here's a snippet of the first sermon Jesus gave as he started his three-year ministry:

WEB Luke 3 4:17 The book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. He opened the book, and found the place where it was written, 18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the broken hearted, to proclaim release to the captives, recovering of sight to the blind, to deliver those who are crushed, 19 and to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.” 20 He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of all in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 He began to tell them, “Today, this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

(Our churches should be sponsoring college students to study how to be social workers (healing the broken-hearted), to be lawyers (providing justice to the falsely-accused and oppressed), to be medical researchers and doctors (to heal blindness), to be financial counselors (to help get people out of crushing debt), as well as to be preachers - in short, to be Social Justice Warriors (as bad as that term is politically amongst many of us). The students could then pay back the church by offering reduced-price/free services for a decade, or hefty contributions toward the next generation's education, or ....)

Here's what Jesus said about meticulous detail to legalities as opposed to being other-focused, and as to which of the two is weightier:

WEB Matt 23:23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cumin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faith.

Even our assemblies are never stated to be for the purpose of God-focus; rather, they're to be one-another focused.

WEB Heb 10:24 Let us consider how to provoke one another to love and good works, 25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another; and so much the more, as you see the Day approaching.

and

WEB 1 Cor 14:26 What is it then, brothers? When you come together, each one of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has another language, has an interpretation. Let all things be done to build each other up.

Yes, worship takes place in the assembly (e.g., 1 Cor 14:25), as it should "day and night" (e.g. Luke 2:37), but that's not the purpose of assembling. It can be perfectly good worship, but if it doesn't benefit the others in the assembly, it doesn't belong in the assembly (1 Cor 14:17); this is because the assembly's purpose is not vertically-focused toward God, but horizontally-focused toward one-another. Even the Lord's Supper, if it excludes the one-anotherness of recognizing the body of believers, is not really the Lord's Supper, and the fix for this is not to "worship better", but to "wait for one another" (1 Cor 11:17-34).

Over and over: It's not about rituals; it's about relationships.

Originally published at:
https://kentwest.blogspot.com/2019/05/concerning-crux-of-christianity.html

The Crux

The cross is the crux of the work Jesus did, sacrificing himself for the good of others.

The one-anotherness is the crux of the work we are to do; sacrificing ourselves for the good of others.

Originally published at:
https://kentwest.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-crux.html

The New Covenant - Relationships

The new covenant is not about swapping out one legal system for another, in order to "be saved".

It's about restoring Eden, wherein there is no violence, disease, death.

As humans, we can only do so much toward this goal (and will have to wait for Jesus' return for most of it), so Jesus emphasized what we *can* do, and that's to have a God-at-the-top community, wherein the citizens treat each other with mutual respect, bearing one anothers' burdens, helping the widow and orphan and sick, never seeking vengeance or responding with "oh no you did'n!" as you plan a way to "teach them a lesson" or flipping off the bad driver who cut you off in traffic.

In short, the good news is supposed to result in a social healing at our hands; the mental and physical healing comes at the hands of God.

It's not about what we eat or drink or what day we worship or our church organization or what rituals we observe; it's about how we treat each other. This is the crux of Christianity - one-another relationships.

Originally published at:
https://kentwest.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-new-covenant-relationships.html

Pressed on Every Side

WEB Acts 17:24 The God who made the world and all things in it, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, doesn’t dwell in temples made with hands,

What Paul tells the pagans is one of the things that earned the early Christians the label of "atheists" (seen post-New Testament, mostly, although you do see a hint of it in Acts 19:26).

The Greco-Roman world could not conceive of a god that didn't live in a physical temple, and the lack of a physical temple amongst the Christians led the Greeks and Romans to conclude that whatever these new "Christians" were, they must be atheists.

On the one hand, the Jews were "hearing" the message from Christians that they had rejected their long-sought after Messiah (who looked nothing like what they had expected), and that this Messiah had put an end to the necessity of Law-keeping, and that God was an entirely different Being than they "knew" him to be, while on the other hand the Greco-Romans were "hearing" strange new things they had never heard before (Acts 17:19-20) which threatened their own Deities and livelihoods (Acts 19:27).

The push-back from both Jews and Gentiles drove Paul to say (twice):

We are pressed on every side.... (2 Cor 4:8)

... we were afflicted on every side. (2 Cor 7:5)

Originally published at:
https://kentwest.blogspot.com/2019/04/pressed-on-every-side.html

Easter Reflections on Jewish Holy Days

In the Jewish Law of Moses, the Jews were given seven holy days to observe yearly.

The first three of these seven, the Spring Feasts (mid-April-ish), represent the Suffering Messiah. They all occur/begin within three days of each other.

1) Passover (Pesach)

In the middle of the month of Nisan (roughly April), this feast served to remind the Israelites that God had delivered them out of Egyptian slavery (a la "The Ten Commandments" story). The last plague on Egypt, which led to the Exodus, was the death of the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt. The Israelite sons were spared, because the Israelite families had each sacrificed a lamb that night, and painted the lamb's blood on the door frame of the house, signifying that in this house was a firstborn son belonging to the God of Israel, so that the Angel of Death would "pass over" this house.

Jesus fulfilled Passover, becoming our Passover lamb. His blood was shed, and covers us. He was crucified on Passover.

2) Feast of Unleavened Bread (Matza)

This week-long festival begins the day after Passover. The eating of unleavened bread for seven days symbolizes a perfect period of purity. With leaven being a symbol of sin, and Jesus being sinless, Jesus makes the perfect representation of unleavened bread, and like the piercings which form stripes in unleavened matzo bread, he was beaten with stripes and pierced for our transgressions, and like the afikomen of the Passover meal (the middle piece of bread that is broken, wrapped in linen, and hidden for a short while), the body of Jesus was broken, wrapped in linen, and hidden in the tomb for a short while.

3) First Fruits

A representative sampling from the first harvest of the summer is offered as the "first fruits". This holy day is the day after the "high sabbath" of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Jesus, rising from the dead, became the First Fruits of the resurrection; at the end of the growing season, the full harvest will result in the rest of us attaining to the resurrection.

Easter is the early church's celebration of Jesus as the First Fruits of the resurrection.

4) Pentecost (Shavuot)

Fifty days after Passover, this holy day commemorates the giving of the Law on Mt Sinai, when God came down in fire and established the Mosaic covenant. You may recall that at that time the Rebellion of Korah resulted in the death of about 3000 souls.

In Acts 2 we read about another Pentecost, when a new covenant was established, when the Holy Spirit appeared as tongues of fire, and resulted in the saving of about 3000 souls.

All four of the above holy days have had a New Covenant fulfillment. 

The next three Fall Feasts (September/October) represent the coming of the Conquering King.

5) Day of Trumpets (Yom Teruah, Rosh Hashana)

This is the Jewish (civil) New Year, and begins a ten-day period of self-reflection, forgiveness, repentance, remembrance of God's judgment, and joy. God also examines the lives of his people during this time, by opening the Book of Life; if the person's record shows more good than bad, the name remains written in the Book of Life for another year. The Jewish trumpet (shofar) is blown many times during this period.

You may be familiar with the New Testament promises of the return of Jesus at the last trump, when the dead in Christ shall be the first to rise, to then stand before the Judgment Seat of God who then searches the records in the Book of Life.

The above Rosh Hashana feast and the next Yom Kippur feast are the two Jewish High Holy Days.

6) Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur)

Ten days later is the Day of Atonement. It's a day of repentance, prayer, fasting, and reconciliation. On this day, the High Priest entered the Holy of Holiest Places in the Temple, after offering a sacrifice for the sins of himself and the people. He's the only one ever allowed in there (so the Jews started tying a rope to him to pull out his body should the Lord not accept his offering and strike him dead), and only on this one day of the year. When the priest returns from the Holiest of Holies, the people rejoice, for God has accepted the sacrifice. Compare the first half of Hebrews 9.

Jesus has gone into the Holiest of the Holies (second half of Hebrews 9), and he "will appear a second time, without sin, to those who are eagerly waiting for him for salvation" (Heb 9:28).

7) Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot)

Five days after the Day of Atonement, the Feast of Tabernacles/Booths reminds the Jews, who live in temporary booths during this feast, of their forty years in the wilderness, when they lived in tents, until they could move into permanent homes in the Promised Land.

In Jesus' day, the people carried torches around the walls of the temple to demonstrate that the Christ would be a light to the Gentiles (non-Jewish nations). It was at this feast (John 7:2) that Jesus said, "I am the light of the world" (John 8:12).

The priest also performed a water ritual as a symbolic pouring out of the Spirit.
You may recall that Paul wrote to the Corinthians about dwelling in earthly tabernacles (our bodies), to be replaced with heavenly tabernacles when we reach the "Promised Land". He adds, "God ... also gave to us the down payment of the Spirit" (1 Cor 5:5).

The fulfillment of these last three holy days are yet in our future.

The better we understand these seven Jewish feasts, the better we'll understand the context of much of New Testament writing.

Originally published at:
https://kentwest.blogspot.com/2019/04/easter-reflections-on-jewish-holy-days.html

New Conversion Rules for non-Jews

Go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit....
 -- WEB Matt 28:19

In the Jewish culture of the time, the "nations" (the non-Jews) could only be joined to the People of God (Israel) by:

1. undergoing circumcision and
2. being immersed in water and
3. keeping the law of Moses.

In Acts 15 we read that the strict sect of Jewish Christianity demanded that the newly-believing-and-baptized non-Jews must also be circumcised and keep the law of Moses:

But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
 -- WEB Acts 15:5

After considerable debate, the church, aided by the Holy Spirit, decided that belief and baptism, without being circumcised and without keeping the law of Moses, was enough for the non-Jewish nations, just as Jesus had instructed in the Great Commission.

And Paul makes it clear that these non-circumcised immersed believers had been grafted into God's People, making one man of the two sects, the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision (Eph 2) becoming one body, via one baptism, in one spirit, in one faith, with one Lord, under one God and Father (Eph 4).

Originally published at:
https://kentwest.blogspot.com/2019/04/new-conversion-rules-for-non-jews.html

Immutable Text Sections in LibreOffice Writer

Suppose you have a document in LibreOffice Writer, and you need to prevent changes to one or more sections.

Easy.

Say this is your document:

This text needs to be immutable.
This text does not. 

 Highlight the first section you need to be unalterable:

This text needs to be immutable.
This text does not. 

Then go to Insert / Section. In the "New Section" field, change "Section1" (if you so desire) and rename it to something like "Immutable 1". Then tick the "Protect" box, and finally click on Insert.

That line of text is now unchangeable.

And if you're an emacs fan, emacs can do this also by changing the Properties of the text to read-only.

Originally published at:
https://kentwest.blogspot.com/2019/03/immutable-text-sections-in-libreoffice.html

The Fossil Record Testifies of Rapid Deposition

Practically every fossil found testifies to a rapid burial in a catastrophic (locally, at a minimum) inundation of sediment, borne usually by water (but sometimes by wind, avalanche, volcanic ash-fall, etc).

There are billions of fossils world-wide, in layer after layer of deposited sediment, sometimes stretching through several layers. Each of these fossils testify to a rapid burial as opposed to slow, almost imperceptible processes.

Just sayin'.

Originally published at:

https://kentwest.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-fossil-record-testifies-of-rapid.html