I Don't Like Praise Teams

On one of my church lists recently, someone wrote:

I do not like praise teams. I do not think they are scriptural.

 My response was as follows:

I totally understand you not liking praise teams; I don't much care for them either, but for practical reasons, such as their volume overpowering the congregational singing. It's also just plain uncomfortable to see a group leading singing if you've never been exposed to it, especially if that group contains women, and you're strongly convinced they shouldn't be "leading" in a mixed assembly.

Totally understandable why someone wouldn't like them.

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

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

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

Just something to consider.

Sing with the Spirit, Sing with the Understanding

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

I believe most of those who use this phrase fail to understand the context of that phrase. Below is my own paraphrase of 1 Cor 14:13-19 which might make the meaning more clear. I encourage you to get your favorite version of the Bible and read this passage for yourself and see if my paraphrase hits the mark or not.

Therefore, one who speaks with the spirit, that is, in a tongue, should pray that he may interpret.

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

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

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

Worshipers or Citizens?

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

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

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

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

With which planet do you suppose God would be most pleased? Which planet do you suppose best represents God's Kingdom?

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

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

1 Cor 14:34-35

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Expression of the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit

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

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

-- Steven Cantu

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

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

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

The Task of the Church

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

There should be no poverty in our world. God has put riches enough in our world to provide all of us with not just our needs, but also our joys. But Christians have focused on saving souls instead of fulfilling:

• Jesus' first sermon (Luke 4:14-19), which explained his mission as giving good news to the poor, and proclaiming freedom to captives, and giving sight to the blind, and freeing the oppressed, and proclaiming the year of the Lord's favor;
• or his last (Matt 25:31-46), which was about feeding the hungry, providing drink to the thirsty, taking in the stranger, clothing the naked, taking care of the sick and the prisoner;
• or that of John, who when asked what should be done to demonstrate repentance, did not tell his listeners to study their Bibles more or bring visitors to church or convert sinners, but told them to share their stuff, to not overcharge for their services, and to be content with what they had;
• or that of Paul who stressed that the fulfillment of the law of Christ was to bear one another's burdens (Gal 6:2);
• or that of Paul in another sermon wherein he stressed that he didn't mean that one group should fare well while another suffers, but that the well-to-do group should bring the suffering group up to a level of financial equality with them (2 Cor 8:13-15).

There also should be no sickness in our world. Another part of Jesus' first sermon was to heal the blind. I believe God has given us the technological ability to heal all sorts of diseases; we just haven't yet discovered that ability in a lot of cases, and in those cases for which we do have answers, we don't have the fair distribution to get the cures out to everyone who needs them. The church has a mandate, I believe, for making sure its young people are educated and driven to find and deliver medical healing to the world.

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

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

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

Originally published at:
http://kentwest.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-task-of-church.html

Obedience != Perfection

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

No?

Do you then consider them disobedient because of their failures?

No?

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

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

Originally published at:
http://kentwest.blogspot.com/2015/02/obedience-perfection.html

Wives, Submit!

^{HCSB Eph 5:18}And ... be filled by the Spirit: ... 21 submitting to one another in the fear of Christ. 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord....

In my environment, the typical take-away message from this passage is that women are to be submissive to men, or at least, wives to their husbands.

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

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

To whom was this passage written?

To the Ephesians.

And for what were the Ephesians known?

^{HCSB Act 19:35}However, when the city clerk had calmed the crowd down, he said, "Men of Ephesus! What man is there who doesn't know that the city of the Ephesians is the temple guardian of the great Artemis, and of the image that fell from heaven?

So we have a city which is known for its adherence to the cult of the female goddess, Artemis. In this cult, women were the priests. Legend had it that the city was founded by the Amazons, and indeed, Amazon warrior women were a key component of the Artemis Temple. Artemis herself was regarded as the goddess of hunting, and as the "shooter of swift arrows", and as the "mistress of wild beasts".

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

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

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

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

Knowing these things, we can now see that when Paul writes to Timothy, whom he had left in Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3), he intended to contrast Christian worship with that of Artemis, which had apparently been a source of opposition for him and for Christians in general, perhaps specifically the men:

^{HCSB 1 Tim 2:8}Therefore, I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument.⁹Also, the women are to dress themselves in modest clothing, with decency and good sense, not with elaborate hairstyles, gold, pearls, or expensive apparel,¹⁰but with good works, as is proper for women who affirm that they worship God.¹¹A woman should learn in silence with full submission.¹²I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent.¹³For Adam was created first, then Eve.¹⁴And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.¹⁵But she will be saved through childbearing, if she continues in faith, love, and holiness, with good judgment.

( This phrase "have authority over a man" is unique in the Bible, and we must turn to extra-Biblical material to learn that it has reference to a power struggle.)

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

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

(Thanks for the insights provided by the Istoria Ministries Blog - http://www.wadeburleson.org/2013/02/artemus-and-end-of-us-evangelical.html)

Originally published at:
http://kentwest.blogspot.com/2015/02/wives-submit.html

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

About half-way through Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, he turns his attention to addressing issues they had written to him about:

^{HCSB 1 Cor 7:1} Now in response to the matters you wrote about:

As he deals with these issues, he seems to adopt a style that I have often used myself. He first quotes something from their letter, and then gives his response to that quote. We see that here in the first issue he addresses.

^{HCSB 1 Cor 7:1} “It is good for a man not to have relations with a woman." ² But because sexual immorality is so common, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband.

The Corinthians are saying that it is good to avoid sex, and Paul's response is that this attitude leads to sexual immorality, and the proper "fix" is not to avoid sex, but to have a spouse.

On the next topic, concerning idols, he again quotes the letter they had written to him, and then provides his response:

^{HCSB 1 Cor 8:1} About food offered to idols: We know that “we all have knowledge." Knowledge inflates with pride, but love builds up. ... ⁴ About eating food offered to idols, then, we know that “an idol is nothing in the world,” and that “there is no God but one.” ... ⁷ However, not everyone has this knowledge.

The Corinthians are saying, "We have knowledge", and Paul responds, "Yes, but don't get all snooty; opt for love."

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

He then addresses their loose lifestyle, which they have adopted because they recognize that as Christians, they have freedom from restrictive law which their Jewish forbears did not.

^{HCSB 10:23} “Everything is permissible," but not everything is helpful. “Everything is permissible," but not everything builds up. ²⁴ No one should seek his own good, but the good of the other person.

The Corinthians are spouting the slogan that "everything is permissible", but Paul is correcting them that even so, not everything is helpful or constructive, and such things should be judged in the light of how they do or do not help the other person.

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

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

And in fact, this latter phrase agrees with what Jesus had said earlier:

^{HCSB Mark 7:18} And He said to them, “Are you also as lacking in understanding? Don’t you realize that nothing going into a man from the outside can defile him? ¹⁹ For it doesn’t go into his heart but into the stomach and is eliminated." (As a result, He made all foods clean.) ²⁰ Then He said, “What comes out of a person—that defiles him.

But the Corinthians were also applying this philosophy to sexual encounters, to which Paul answers, using the food-stomach relationship they had used:

^{HCSB 1 Cor 6:13b} The body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.

Paul continues his explanation, and in both verses 16 and 19, he uses a conjunction, "or", to start his sentence. Different versions render it in various ways:

^HCSB Don’t you know...

^{ESV 16} Or do you not know...

  

^{YLT 16} have ye not known...

^{ISV 16} You know ..., don’t you?

^{KJV 16} What? know ye not...

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

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

Now I want to turn to the last passage I mentioned. This same conjunction is also used in chapter 14. The text just before it, which I'll quote from the KJV, says:

^{KJV 1 Cor 14:34} Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
³⁵ And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

But now look at the very next verse:

³⁶ What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

This is in a passage wherein all the Christians have just been urged by Paul to use their God-given gifts within the church assembly to build up the members. Right in the middle of this passage is this short aside wherein Paul seemingly tells women to stay silent, and then immediately says, "What?! Has God given his gifts only to a select few?!"

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

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

I believe it's a concept worth considering.

Originally published at:

http://kentwest.blogspot.com/2015/02/pauls-quotation-response-style-and.html

Should We Bind Examples As We Do Commands?

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

My answer is: Yes, and No.

Paul writes:

^{HCSB 1 Cor 4:16} Therefore I urge you to imitate me.

^{HCSB 1 Cor 11:1} Imitate me, as I also imitate Christ.² Now I praise you because you always remember me and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.

The implication, of course, is that whatever the first century church was doing, they were doing according to what Paul had taught them, and thus are traditions to be kept.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally published at:
http://kentwest.blogspot.com/2015/02/should-we-bind-examples-as-we-do.html

Baptism = Pouring

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

Yes, that's what I thought.

But just now, a thought came into my head, and I checked out some relevant passages. Here they are:

ESV Luke 3:16 John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

and

ESV Acts 1: 4 And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

and

ESV Acts 2:33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.

and

ESV Acts 10:45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles.

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

Originally published at:
http://kentwest.blogspot.com/2015/02/baptism-pouring.html

Church Giving in the First Century

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

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

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

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

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

Baptizing Bread

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

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

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

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

Originally published at:
http://kentwest.blogspot.com/2015/02/baptizing-bread.html

Acts 20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally published at:
http://kentwest.blogspot.com/2015/02/acts-20.html

The Assembly is for Believers, Not Unbelievers

Read 1 Cor 14 with a fresh mindset, committed to reading it with an open mind, in order to understand the following.

1 Cor 14 indicates that the assembly is designed to benefit the believers, not the unbelievers. Unbelievers will benefit if they come, but that's not the focus. So offering an invitation makes no sense.

We were tasked with going into all the world and making disciples, not with inviting them into our meetings designed for believers in order to try to convert them there.

Our assemblies are not for the purpose of worshiping God (vertical focus), or for pulling in outsiders to convert them, but for encouraging one another (horizontal focus). These other activities (worship and conversion) will take place in our assemblies, but they're not the purpose for our assemblies.

A special "Gospel Meeting" would be an appropriate time to reach out to unbelievers, but only if it was designed to appeal to unbelievers, rather than simply an extended version of our current meetings.

(While on the subject, notice that according to 1 Cor 14, our current meetings have the wrong focus (vertical instead of horizontal) and are organized in opposition to Paul's instructions, wherein each member uses whatever God-given gift he has in order to encourage others, one by one, so that all may encourage and all may be encouraged. This is reiterated by Peter, in 1 Peter 4:9-11: "Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling. Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms. If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ.")
 
"Church" should be for the benefit of believers, not unbelievers, and if you're going to have an outreach program such as a "Gospel Meeting", it needs to be designed for the benefit of unbelievers, not believers.

Note that there's nothing wrong with evangelizing non-Christians within our assemblies; in fact, it's a good thing. What I'm railing against is that the Biblically-stated purpose of assembling is to build up the converted, and it seems to me that we've neglected that stated purpose for other things, such as worshiping (also a good thing in our assemblies (1 Cor 14:17, 25), but not the stated purpose for them (1 Cor 14:17, 26)) and converting. Both of these are good things, but not at the neglect of the God-stated purpose, that of the building up our own.

When you invite a non-believer to the assembly in hopes of the preacher converting him, you're in essence expecting the purpose of the assembly to be the conversion of unbelievers. It's great that an unbeliever might be converted (as happens late in chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians, not as the result of preaching, however, but of being convicted and judged by all the members, not just the preacher, thus revealing his inner secrets), but to expect that is to expect something that is not the purpose of the assembly.

All I'm saying is that we need to realign our thinking of the assembly to be more Biblical. The assembly is for believers, not for unbelievers.

Originally published at:
http://kentwest.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-assembly-is-for-believers-not.html

Allah is God?!

Allah is the generic Aramaic word for "God", like the Hebrew Elah (or more commonly recognized in another form, El).

The Scriptures teach us that all of humanity, believers and pagans alike, know of God, testifying that...

what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:19).

Paul recognizes that the pagans in Athens worship the one true God, although in ignorance:

Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you. (Acts 17:23).

Muslims themselves declare that when they use their language's term for "God", that being Allah, they mean the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Do we accuse the French of worshiping a different God because they use the French word for God, Dieu?

Why is it that the Scriptures declare that the world can know of and even worship God (albeit in ignorance), without even knowing His name at all, but we can't admit the possibility that Muslims worship this same God in ignorance, using a different language?

Note, I'm not suggesting the Muslims worship God correctly. I'm merely suggesting that they, like us, are seeking God. Paul says this is by God's design, that God...

has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him. (Acts 17:26ff).

Even Muslims are designed by God to grope for Him, in hope of finding Him.

Apollos knew some things about the Lord, but he needed Priscilla and Aquilla to take him aside and explain to him more accurately the way of God (Acts 18:24ff). Muslims also need to have the way of God explained more accurately to them. They recognize that the One, True God exists, and they're willing to worship Him. We should take them aside and explain to them more accurately the way of God, not cast them away as unworthy of seeking Him.

Originally published at:
http://kentwest.blogspot.com/2015/01/allah-is-god.html

"Old Testament"?

What we, and our Bible publishers, call "Old Testament", is not what the Scriptures call "old testament".

Originally published at:
http://kentwest.blogspot.com/2015/01/old-testament.html

Church Giving

Most modern Christians are under the impression that church members should give at least ten percent (a "tithe") of their income to the local church treasury.

But is this the Biblical model? (No, but there's nothing wrong with it, as long as it's not coercive.)

We tend to think that the Jews were required to give a tithe of their income to the Lord, and that we should do at least that well. Even among those of us who believe the "legal" requirement of a tithe is no longer binding, it's commonly believed that a tenth should be the starting point for giving.

The Jewish Background
--
The Jews were required to leave the corners of their crop fields unharvested. These unharvested corners could then be reaped by the poor of the community. (Note that the poor still had to work to feed themselves.) This corner-harvesting is what we see the widow Ruth doing, to feed herself and her mother-in-law, in the book of Ruth. This corner "tax" probably amounted to 1-3% of the farmer's income. Note that this "tax" was not levied against the poor, who benefited from this "tax", nor was it levied against non-farm industries.

The Jews were required to take a tenth (the "tithe") of their income to the national "church", the Temple, at feast-time. This was often in the form of a sacrificial animal and/or first-fruits of their crops. The priests working at the Temple would then cook/prepare this food, and take a portion of that food for themselves, and the remaining portion would then be eaten by the donor and his family as part of the feast.

Every third year, an additional tithe (averaged over three years would be about 3%/year) would be given to the priests. Here's the relevant passage from Deuteronomy 14:

²² “Each year you are to set aside a tenth of all the produce grown in your fields. ²³ You are to eat a tenth of your grain, new wine, and oil, and the firstborn of your herd and flock, in the presence of Yahweh your God at the place where He chooses to have His name dwell, so that you will always learn to fear the Lord your God. ²⁴ But if the distance is too great for you to carry it, since the place where Yahweh your God chooses to put His name is too far away from you and since the Lord your God has blessed you, ²⁵ then exchange it for money, take the money in your hand, and go to the place the Lord your God chooses. ²⁶ You may spend the money on anything you want: cattle, sheep, wine, beer, or anything you desire. You are to feast there in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice with your family. ²⁷ Do not neglect the Levite within your gates, since he has no portion or inheritance among you.
²⁸ “At the end of every three years, bring a tenth of all your produce for that year and store it within your gates. ²⁹ Then the Levite, who has no portion or inheritance among you, the foreigner, the fatherless, and the widow within your gates may come, eat, and be satisfied. And the Lord your God will bless you in all the work of your hands that you do.

So the total Jewish "tax" on a Jewish family was about 16% (tithe, plus third-year tithe (3%), plus field corners (3%)).

The typical federal tax on an American family is closer to about 30%, not including sales taxes and state taxes and gasoline taxes and utility taxes and administrative fees, etc. Add another 10% for a church "tithe" to that, and it's no wonder many American Christians feel less than cheerful about giving to support a system that seemingly does little more than buy bigger church buildings and fancier ties for the preacher. Even in the little struggling churches, a member must often choose between paying his own electric bill or that of the church building.

The First Century Church
--
When the church first began, it was exclusively Jewish. As such, these Jewish Christians were still giving their tithes to the Jewish system. But in addition, they were living communally:

Acts 4:32 Now the large group of those who believed were of one heart and mind, and no one said that any of his possessions was his own, but instead they held everything in common.

In addition, they also had garage sales and brought the proceeds to the church leaders to distribute to the other members of the church as they needed:

Acts 4:34 For there was not a needy person among them, because all those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, ³⁵ and laid them at the apostles’ feet. This was then distributed for each person’s basic needs.

Later, after Gentiles were grafted into this Jewish Christianity, it was foretold by the prophet Agabus that a famine was about to hit the entire Roman world, which led the Christians in Antioch to take up a collection to send to the saints back in Jerusalem:

Acts 11:27 In those days some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. ²⁸ Then one of them, named Agabus, stood up and predicted by the Spirit that there would be a severe famine throughout the Roman world. This took place during the time of Claudius. ²⁹ So each of the disciples, according to his ability, determined to send relief to the brothers who lived in Judea. ³⁰ They did this, sending it to the elders by means of Barnabas and Saul.

Later, as Paul recounts these events, he says:

Gal 2:9 When James, Cephas, and John, recognized as pillars, acknowledged the grace that had been given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to me and Barnabas, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. ¹⁰ They asked only that we would remember the poor, which I made every effort to do.

As part of this fund-raising effort, Paul particularly appealed to the Gentile churches in the far-away regions of Macedonia, Achaia (Corinth), and Galatia (to whom Paul wrote the above quote). At the beginning of the fund-raiser, Paul writes:

1 Cor 16:2 Now about the collection for the saints: You should do the same as I instructed the Galatian churches. ² On the first day of the week, each of you is to set something aside and save in keeping with how he prospers, so that no collections will need to be made when I come. ³ When I arrive, I will send with letters those you recommend to carry your gracious gift to Jerusalem.

And then a year later he writes to them again, saying that the Macedonian churches did good with their part of collecting, in part because Paul had bragged to the Macedonians about how the Achaian churches, which included the Corinthian church, were so eager to help:

2 Cor 9:1 Now concerning the ministry to the saints, it is unnecessary for me to write to you. ² For I know your eagerness, and I brag about you to the Macedonians: “Achaia has been prepared since last year,” and your zeal has stirred up most of them.

But now he's afraid that the Corinthians will be an embarrassment if they don't carry out on their promise:

2 Cor 9:4 For if any Macedonians come with me and find you unprepared, we, not to mention you, would be embarrassed in that situation. ⁵ Therefore I considered it necessary to urge the brothers to go on ahead to you and arrange in advance the generous gift you promised, so that it will be ready as a gift and not as an extortion.

That's a large part of the reason Paul is writing 2 Corinthians, in order to get them to get busy collecting funds to send to Judea. But notice that what looks to be a command to give in 1 Cor 16:2 is not actually a command. Paul writes:

2 Cor 8:8 I am not saying this as a command. Rather, by means of the diligence of others, I am testing the genuineness of your love.

Also, note that it's a one-time fund-raiser, not an on-going forever instruction:

2 Cor 8:11 But now finish the task as well, that just as there was eagerness to desire it, so there may also be a completion from what you have.

Also note that it's not an instruction for all Christians; rather, it's an instruction for the wealthier Christians to give to the poor Christians, and that if the situation reverses, he then expects the flow of money to go the other way:

2 Cor 8:12 For if the eagerness is there, it is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what he does not have. ¹³ It is not that there may be relief for others and hardship for you, but it is a question of equality— ¹⁴ at the present time your surplus is available for their need, so their abundance may also become available for our need, so there may be equality. ¹⁵ As it has been written: The person who gathered much did not have too much, and the person who gathered little did not have too little.

Paul includes in this section of his letter an assurance to the Corinthians that arrangements have been made to avoid possible charges of embezzlement by him:

2 Cor 8:18 And not only that, but he was also appointed by the churches to accompany us with this gift that is being administered by us for the glory of the Lord Himself and to show our eagerness to help. ²⁰ We are taking this precaution so no one can criticize us about this large sum administered by us. ²¹ For we are making provision for what is right, not only before the Lord but also before men.

When Paul arrived in Jerusalem and delivered the gift, he then was arrested by his enemies there, saying at his hearing before Governor Felix:

Acts 24:16 I always do my best to have a clear conscience toward God and men. ¹⁷ After many years, I came to bring charitable gifts and offerings to my nation, ¹⁸ and while I was doing this, some Jews from Asia found me ritually purified in the temple, without a crowd and without any uproar. ¹⁹ It is they who ought to be here before you to bring charges, if they have anything against me.

As far as regular church budget expenditures, the New Testament church had a fund for helping widows:

1 Tim 5:9 No widow should be placed on the official support list unless she is at least 60 years old, has been the wife of one husband, ¹⁰ and is well known for good works....

So far, from what we've seen in the New Testament, "giving to the church" is on an as-needed basis, from the Haves to the Have-Nots among the Saints. It's not for paying a pulpit preacher, or paying the church's electric bill, or funding Gospel missions and TV programs.

However, there is Scriptural authorization for these things also:

Gal 6:10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, we must work for the good of all, especially for those who belong to the household of faith.

1 Cor 9:7 Who ever goes to war at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its fruit? Or who shepherds a flock and does not drink the milk from the flock? ⁸ Am I saying this from a human perspective? Doesn’t the law also say the same thing? ⁹ For it is written in the law of Moses, Do not muzzle an ox while it treads out grain. Is God really concerned with oxen? ¹⁰ Or isn’t He really saying it for us? Yes, this is written for us, because he who plows ought to plow in hope, and he who threshes should do so in hope of sharing the crop. ¹¹ If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it too much if we reap material benefits from you? ¹² If others have this right to receive benefits from you, don’t we even more?

Titus 3:13 Diligently help Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their journey, so that they will lack nothing.

Rom 16:2 So you should welcome her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints and assist her in whatever matter she may require your help.

Conclusion:
--
In the New Testament church, giving is not commanded, especially from the Have-Nots, but is encouraged, especially from the Haves, primarily to help financially-strapped Christians, with the goal of equality. Giving is also encouraged to help non-Christians, and to further the gospel presentation to the world and to pay the church bills.


Originally published at:
http://kentwest.blogspot.com/2015/01/church-giving.html

Covenants, old and new, Abrahamic and Mosaic and Christian

• Jeremiah refers to two covenants:
• an old one which YHWH made with the ancestors of the houses of Israel and Judah when he took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt
• a new one which was to be different than that old one
• Luke 1:72-73 refers to the covenant made via oath sworn to Abraham
• Hebrews 8 specifies:
• that the old covenant mentioned by Jeremiah is aging and about to disappear
• that the new, better, covenant, promised in Jeremiah, is mediated by Jesus, and it delivers the promise of eternal inheritance, and a death to provide redemption of transgressions committed under the old covenant
• Gal 3 mentions the covenant of Abraham (the same one mentioned in Luke 1), saying that it was not set aside by the coming of the temporary covenant which came 430 years later (referred to in Jeremiah as the "old covenant"), and that the old covenant was "until the Seed came". Now that Jesus has come, that old covenant is no more, and the original Abrahamic covenant is inherited by those who, like Abraham, have faith (that is, those who "belong to Christ").

Conclusions:

• the "old covenant" refers only to the Law of Moses, and not to earlier covenants such as that with Abraham, Noah, or Adam, or to later covenants, such as that with David.
• the "old covenant" has passed away now with the coming of Christ.
• the "new covenant" replaces the old.
• the "new covenant" is a continuation of the Abrahamic covenant.
• the "new covenant" is a fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise that all nations (not just Jews) would be blessed through the Seed. In fact, this is a definition for the term "gospel" according to Gal 3:8.
• unlike the old covenant which consisted of regulations for ministry, written in stone (Heb 9:1; 2 Cor 3:3,7), the "different" new covenant:
• is one of the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law (2 Cor 3:6), and
• does not consist of regulations (Col 2:20ff), but consists of "knowing God" in the heart (Jer 31:33-34).
• Mature adults don't need "law":
• mature adults choose to do "the right thing" regardless of written regulations
• Jesus taught this principle, that heart-condition matters more than law-keeping:
• in the specifics of adultery in the heart (intention) vs actual law-breaking action (Matt 5:28).
• in his admonition to the Pharisees to administer justice and mercy and faithfulness rather then fussing over the details of tithing (Matt 23:23).
• in his admonition to the Pharisees to "clean the inside of the cup", rather than to look shiny on the outside while being full of greed and self-indulgence on the inside (Matt 23:24-25).
• "Law" was to get us to a state of maturity (Gal 3:24).
• As a child, you needed a law to keep you from stepping out into the street; as an adult, you no longer need that letter of the law to keep you from getting run over, as you are mature enough now to keep the spirit of the law, which is to "be careful when crossing the street".
• It is this heart-condition vs law-keeping-condition:
• which justified Abraham by faith, prior to action (Rom 4:10), and
• which God saw in Cornelius' group, leading him to cleanse their hearts prior to immersion (Acts 15:8), and
• which allowed Jesus to define adultery, murder, greed, etc as a heart-condition rather than as an action, and
• which makes the new covenant different from the old.
• But with that freedom which comes with maturity comes a greater responsibility to honor the spirit of the law, and he who insults/outrages/spites the Spirit of grace will receive worse punishment than he who merely breaks the letter of the law (Heb 10:29).

Originally published at:
http://kentwest.blogspot.com/2014/12/covenants-old-and-new-abrahamic-and.html