Did you know this about the book of Lamentations?

 

Did you know...

... the book of Lamentations has five chapters. Chapters 1, 2, 4, and 5 each have 22 verses. In chapters 1, 2, and 4, each verse begins with a letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The fifth chapter, although having twenty verses, does not follow this alphabet ("alef-bet", more accurately) pattern.

 

Chapter 3 has 66 verses, and retains the Hebrew alphabet pattern, except there's three verses per letter instead of just one.

 

In addition, there's a specific poetic pattern (three stresses followed by two) which the first four chapters follow; the fifth chapter does not have this pattern.

 

Few English Bible translations make either of these points clear to the reader. The Holman Christian Standard Bible, among a few others, does reveal the acrostic pattern, as you can see at Biblegateway.com .

Jesus Has Sisters

 

Some folks might not know that Jesus had sisters...

WEB Matt 13:55 Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother called Mary, and his brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? 56 Aren’t all of his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all of these things?” 57 They were offended by him.

Has the Holy Spirit revealed that the old law was nailed to the cross?

Has the Holy Spirit revealed that the old law was nailed to the cross?

ESV Col 2:14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

"The record of debt" doesn't sound much like "the old law".

Prefer a different version?

CEV God wiped out the charges that were against us for disobeying the Law of Moses. He took them away and nailed them to the cross.

HSCB He erased the certificate of debt, with its obligations, that was against us and opposed to us, and has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the cross.

LSB Having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us which was hostile to us, He also has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

MOUNCE (a Biblical Greek expert) Having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us which was hostile to us, He also has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

NASB having canceled the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

NIV having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.

RSV having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

VOICE eliminated the massive debt we incurred by the law that stood against us. He took it all away; He nailed it to the cross.

This text evokes the idea of a criminal's charges being nailed above the criminal's head while he hangs on the cross. We see this exampled in the case of Jesus:

WEB Matt 27:37 They set up over his head the accusation against him written, “THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS.”

WEB Mark 15:26 The superscription of his accusation was written over him, “THE KING OF THE JEWS.”

It is this record of charges against us that Col 2:14 is speaking about. Our charges were nailed to the cross upon which Jesus hung, so that our charges became his charges. As Peter states...

WEB 1 Pet 2:24 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live to righteousness. You were healed by his wounds.

It is true that the Holy Spirit has revealed that we are no longer to serve the letter of the law, but rather the spirit. Paul says this at least three times:

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

Rom 2:29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not from men, but from God.

2 Cor 3:6 who also made us sufficient as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

That's the essence of what Jesus taught: "Keep the commandments, the ones that teach you to love your neighbor as yourself; this is what the law and prophets teach, and it's what I teach, and it's what I want you to teach."

It's what Paul teaches:

WEB Rom 13:9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

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

And it's what James teaches:

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

Jesus teaches the law of Moses, but he teaches the spirit of the law, not the letter. And he tells his Apostles to teach what he taught them.

False Teachers

The term "false teacher" occurs one time in the New Testament:

WEB 2 Peter 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, as false teachers will also be among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master who bought them, bringing on themselves swift destruction. Many will follow their immoral ways, and as a result, the way of the truth will be maligned. In covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words: whose sentence now from of old doesn’t linger, and their destruction will not slumber. ...

and here the term does not refer to a teacher who mistakenly believes and teaches false things; it refers to teachers who are not genuine.

 

The phrase refers to teachers who are false, not to teachings that are false.

 

If we're going to use Biblical phrases in Biblical ways, we should be aware of this distinction.

True Bowing

The English word "worship" is too plastic to be meaningful; we should try to avoid it.

In a recent article posted on Facebook, "worship" is used in both John 4:24 and in Matt 15:9, as if they are the same word, meaning the same thing, in the underlying Greek. They are not. The first is "bow submissively" (much as the article defines it via Vine - "as in the New Testament, kneeling or prostration, to do homage or make obeisance"), and the second one is "reverence or esteem". The first one is a physical display; the second a "feeling".

We can't do a good job discussing the issue if we continue using a word that can shift meaning mid-sentence, depending on who is speaking or hearing and what they're thinking in that moment. We need to be more precise with our language.

What Jesus taught about bowing is that it is no longer a matter of going "over yonder" anymore, to that temple on that mountain or this church building on this hill. Yet when we use the unBiblical phrase "worship service", that's exactly what we're referring to - "going over yonder into that there church building". According to Jesus, that's no longer "worship". Stop referring to it as such.

"Worship", or more accurately "bowing", as in the second commandment - "you shall not bow to idols, nor serve them" - is done in the spirit, truthfully. It's not about doing the correct rituals - sing two songs, have a prayer, then the Lord's Supper at breakfast time, etc". It's about bowing in your spirit before God, truthfully.

God no longer lives in a temple made with hands, where you must go X times in a year in order to bow before him in true nose-to-the-ground fashion for Y amount of time; your body is now his temple, full-time, and it is in your spirit that you must bow before him, truthfully, full-time.

Jesus spoke about what's happening on the inside, not on the outside. The outside can be a great looking mausoleum, but inside be full of dead men's bones. The outside of the cup is not what's important to be clean; it's the inside. It's not what you do in bed that is adultery; it's what you do in your heart before you get to the bedroom. Circumcision is no longer a matter of the outer flesh, but of the inner spirit. "Worship" (bowing) is not about what actions you do in a "worship service" three hours a week; it's about what your spirit is truly doing before God throughout your life. God wants your spirit, not your liturgy (another word that is sometimes regretfully rendered as "worship", adding to the confusion about the issue). Jesus was not telling the woman at the well, "Your worship service is all wrong." He was telling her that God is not concerned about where you bow your body on holy days; he's concerned about your spirit being in submission.

The Worshiping Outsider

Josias walked into the synagogue, half-expecting to see the members of this new sect called "Christians" eating human meat. Instead, he found them chanting in unison, hands raised to God, the psalms he had grown up chanting himself.

Then the chanting stopped, and an elderly man stood up among the people, and with a deep but somewhat gravely voice, spoke the words, "Brethren, we are to love one another. We are to build up one another. We are to use our gifts which the Holy Spirit has granted us, to make one another stronger, better, more loving, more serving. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, love one another!"

In one great and loud chorus, the congregants shouted, "Amen! Blessed be the Lord God and his Son our Savior, Jesus Christ!"

Josias thought to himself, "Well, except for thinking a dead man is the Messiah, who has been crucified and then raised from the dead, these folks aren't too terribly horrible, I suppose. Just nuts. Obviously not of God."

Then the woman standing next to him turned to him and spoke: "I have heard from God's Spirit that you need to apologize to your wife. You should not have broken her spirit with your speech this morning."

Josias was taken aback on several levels. A woman! Speaking to him! As if she was an equal to him! And accusing him of hurting his wife!

And then the realization dawned. How did she know I spoke harshly to my wife this morning?
But before he could open his mouth to challenge her speaking to him, the man on the other side spoke to him. "God has revealed to me that you want to live righteously. He is pleased with this. But he is not pleased with your secret - the one concerning the girl in the market. It is time for you to repent of your thoughts that violate your marriage; you need to find a different place to shop."

Josias was stunned. No one but he knew his mind wandered to this young woman. No one but he and ... God!

Josias was disturbed. Who were these people? Who were they to be speaking so intimately to him, so authoritatively, so accurately?

But again, before he could open his mouth, the whole congregation turned his way, some smiling sadly, some looking somewhat stern. For a few moments, a cacophony came his way, and he heard just snippets -- "God loves you, but...", and "your sin separates" and "choose life", when he heard one louder voice: "Brethren, one at a time, please. God is a God of order, not chaos."

Josias felt a light touch on his arm. It was the first woman who had spoken to him. He felt acceptance from her, which disturbed him, and not just a tiny bit. Another woman next to her, who could have been the first woman's sister, or cousin, or even aunt, spoke: "God loves you. He knows you can be a powerhouse for his kingdom. But you must be honest with your scales. You can no longer cheat your customers with dishonest weights. And you must do right by your wife. And you must do right by the girl you've entertained in your mind. God demands that you repent."

And Josias knew. He knew these people knew. He knew how these people knew. And he fell to his knees, and cried out, "Oh God! My God!" And then he fell forward with his face to the ground, and speaking into the floor tiles, declared, "God is indeed among you people! I am a sinner. He has revealed my heart to you, and you know my secrets, and have reproved me. How can I live before God, unclean?"

And the first woman, kneeling next to him, spoke again. "Your unclean-ness is taken by the Lord. He was wounded for your transgressions, bruised for your sins. In Jesus, there is forgiveness."

And from that moment, Josias' life, and those of his wife and children and customers, would never be the same again.

The Golden Rule

Do we still teach young kids "the Golden Rule"? I remember hearing about it a lot when I was a kid, but I'm not sure I've heard anyone refer to it in years.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The essence of:

NASB Matt 7:12 In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

A Private Little Communion

The thought that's been niggling at the back of my mind recently is that our (traditional USA-based Church of Christ from early 1900s "our") observance has typically been very individualistic - Let me shrink into my little shell, tuning out and excluding all others around me, so that I may be inward- and upward-focused.

I'm just not confident that's what Jesus intended.

The Coming Judgment

Matt 25:41 Then he will say also to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry, and you didn’t believe in baptism; I was thirsty, and you sang with instruments; 43 I was a stranger, and you taught a thousand-year reign; naked, and you called your preacher, "Pastor"; sick, and in prison, and you let a woman serve food in the assembly.’

 

There it is in black-and-white; the consequences of not being academically correct on doctrines (also known as "gnosticism").

But seriously; Jesus said his disciples would be known by their love for one another, not by their doctrine. He said the separation above would be based on how we treat one another, not on what doctrinal beliefs we have. His forerunner told three different groups of people how to show fruit consistent with repentance, and that fruit was not "go to church more often" or "study the Bible harder" or "pray more sincerely", but was in each case, "treat each other as you would want to be treated", which, Jesus said, was the essence of the law and the prophets. His judgment will be based on how we love one another, not on our scores on a theological academic final exam.

The Meaning of "a cappella"

 Most of us (including me) have been educated to believe that "a capella" means "singing without instrumental accompaniment". But Michael G. Knox recently educated me further. He writes (with minor edits):

I’m glad you know what “a cappella” means -- in the modern context. But that wasn't originally the case.

The very reason that term was invented was to differentiate one style of orchestration from another. It did not originally mean “singing without instruments.”

One of the earliest uses of the earlier version “alla capella” (Italian, meaning “according to the chapel”) was in 1742 by the German composer Johann Galliard. He used the term in a secular composition to denote that the style of the song was to mimic “chapel” music of the day. Since, in his experience, the chapel music of the mid-1700’s (Catholic) would have been instrumental, he was referring to a style of accompanied singing. He intended for the music to play in unison with the singers instead of being complementary of the singers. Over time, the term “alla capella” took on the Latin spelling “a cappella” in 1868 when it denoted "that instruments are to play in unison with the voices, or that one part is to be played by a number instruments." ["Chambers's Encyclopaedia," 1868]. In 1875, "a cappella" referenced, for one of the first times, non-instrumental music. But, as other chorales, sung as part of the church service, were written in the same and simple style, the expression "a capella" came in time to be applied to them also, despite their being sung without any instrumental accompaniment whatever. [The Music World, Sept. 11, 1875]

In time, "a cappella" came to mean singing without instruments. How did this happen? It seems this linguistic shift came about because of the rise of Protestantism in the 1800’s. Most Protestant churches did not use instruments with their singing. Several prominent leaders, including John Calvin vehemently opposed instruments in worship on the grounds it was “too strongly tied to antiquated and unorthodox methods from before the Reformation.” So, in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s the normal “chapel” style was only singing and no instruments. Therefore, when one thought of music in the chapel style ("a cappella"), they thought of solely vocal music.

Satan Was Not Always Our Enemy

Because the serpent tempted Eve, God said that he would put hostility between the serpent's offspring and humanity.

WEB Gen 3:4 Yahweh God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, you are cursed above all livestock, and above every animal of the field. You shall go on your belly and you shall eat dust all the days of your life. 15 I will put hostility between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring. He will bruise your head, and you will bruise his heel.”

It seems then, that until that moment, there was no such hostility between us and Satan.

Rust - Read a Single Keypress from the Keyboard, ala 'getch'

How to Read a Keypress from the Keyboard in Rust, similar to getch()

Kent West - kent.west@{that mail that swore to do no evil}

I struggled for days to figure out how to get a simple keypress from the keyboard. Finally! I found a crate on crates.io that makes it as simple as using "getch()" from the ncurses library.

The reason I did not use ncurses is because it requires an initialization step, which swaps out the screen for a new blank screen, which then disappears when you're finished with the curses mode.

I would have used the termion crate, but search high and low on the 'Net for a simple snippet of code that shows just the absolute bare minimum for getting a keypress, and you'll get a headache, and no solution, unless you're smarter than I am (granted, that's not a very high bar, but still...) I do not understand why coders will not give the simplest, barest-possible, COMMENTED!!!! code snippets so the newbie can get started. (Yes, I'm angry about this; Rust could be such a beautiful platform, if non-life-long-coders could learn how to code in it from simple examples and good explanations.)

Here's how to get a keypress from the keyboard in Rust:

Configure 'Cargo.toml'

$ cargo add getchar

src/main.rs

fn main() {
    let keypress = getchar::getchar().unwrap(); // getchar() returns an "Option<char>" type that must be unwrapped to get to the 'char' goody inside.

    println!("You pressed {}", keypress);
} // end of main()

Connect to Google Drive using "rclone" on Debian

1. Install "rclone"
   
   
1. # apt install rclone
   
   
2. Use "rclone" to configure a "remote" for each connection. For example, if you have a work Google account and a personal Google account, you'd need a "remote" for each connection you want to use. Don't worry about making mistakes during this configuration; you can always delete the configuration and start over if need be. As the user with the Google Drive account:
   
   
1. $ rclone --config
2. Assuming you don't already have a "remote" (you don't, or you wouldn't be following this set of instructions), choose n for "New remote".
3. The name for the new remote might be something like "GDrive" or "gdrive-work" or "my-personal-google-drive", etc.
4. "rclone" can connect to all sorts of services; it now gives you a list of services to select from. This list changes from time to time, so don't rely on remembering the number for next time you need to do this. At the time of this writing, the Google Drive item is number 18, so that's the one I'll select.
5. Setting the "Google Application Client Id" has some advantages, but it's a pretty complicated process for someone who has never done it before. For now, I'd keep it simple, and bypass this option by leaving this "client_id" option empty.
6. Ditto the "client_secret".
7. For "scope", you probably want the first option, "Full access [to] all files", because when you access Google Drive from your Debian workstation, you'll probably want full access to those files.
   
8. The "service_account_file" should be left empty (unless you know what you're doing; you don't).
9. Do not "Edit advanced config".
10. Yes, do "Use auto config". This will open a web-browser window where you should log into your Google account, and then "Allow" rclone to access your Google account.
11. Assuming this is not a Shared drive (if it is, you'd know it), select "No".
12. Yes, keep this remote. This is essentially the "Save" step for the configuration of this remote.
    
    
3. You've now configured your first Google Drive "remote". If you have a second Google account, you can configure it now by repeating the above process, starting at step 2, or you can "Quit config", and come back later to configure other remotes as the need arises. This configuration is saved in a plain-text file as "~/.config/rclone/rclone.conf". Instead of using the "rclone --config" "wizard" as we did above, you could've created this config file by hand, but who wants to do that error-prone process?
   
   
4. "$ rclone listremotes" will list the names of the remote[s] you have configured.
   
   
5. "$ rclone ls gdrive-work:" will list the files on the remote named "gdrive-work". Because this "ls" command traverses the file "tree", you may get a bigger listing than you want, so you may want to ls a smaller directory, like "rclone ls gdrive-work:/todo/Week17". Or if you wanted a tree view, "rclone tree gdrive-work:"
   
   
6. But most likely, you want the drive mounted. There are several ways to accomplish this.
   
   
1. Using "rclone mount"
   
   $ mkdir ~/GDrive4Work
   $ rclone mount gdrive-work:/ ~/GDrive4Work
   
   Note that you won't see anything happen, but you can open another terminal window (or file manager, etc) and browse to your mounted directory to access the files.
   
   Ctrl-C will unmount the drive.
   
   Alternatively you can background the process with an ampersand:
   
   $ rclone mount gdrive-work:/ ~/GDrive4Work &
   
   and when you want to unmount, fg to foreground the process, followed by Ctrl-C.
   
   Alternatively, you can mount it in daemon mode:
   
   $ rclone mount gdrive-work:/ ~/GDrive4Work --daemon
   
   and then unmount with:
   
   $ fusermount -u ~/GDrive4Work
   
   (you can also use umount instead of fusermount -u, but the documentation says this is unreliable)
   
   We probably want this mounting to take place at login of the Drive's owner.
   
   Make a little script and put it where you can access it. I have a ~/bin directory for this purpose. Name the script something like "mount-GDrive.sh", and put the following into it:
   
   
   #!/bin/bash
   
   # Test if GDrive is mounted, and if not, mount it
   mountpoint -q /home/[your user]/GDrive4Work || rclone mount gdrive-work:/ /home/[your user]/GDrive4Work --daemon
   
   
   Save the file, and make sure it's executable:
   
   $ chmod +x ~/bin/mount-GDrive.sh
   
   Then place a call to this script at the bottom of your ~/.bash_profile file:
   
   ~/bin/mount-GDrive.sh
   
   If you don't already have a ~/.bash_profile you can create it, but make sure to source the ~/.bashrc file by adding to the top of ~/.bash_profile this line:
   
   . ~/.bashrc
   
   (There's a space after the first dot.)
   
   Now, reboot your system and make sure it all works.
   
   
2.  Using an /etc/fstab entry
   
   This method is probably not the best, because it will mount the drive at boot-time, regardless of the Drive's "owner" being logged in or not. Also, the mount will not be owned by the "owner", unless special care is taken in the /etc/fstab file. The following is here just for documentation purposes; you're probably better off using the first method above.
   
   You can add a line to /etc/fstab like the following:
   
   gdrive-work:/ /home/[your user]/GDrive4Work rclone rw,noauto,nofail,_netdev,x-systemd.automount,args2env,vfs_cache_mode=writes,config=/home/[your user]/rclone/rclone.conf,cache_dir=/var/cache/rclone 0 0
   
   If you try to mount the drive now with:
   
   # mount /home/[your user]GDrive4Work
   
   you'll get a message that rclone is not a known type, and that fstab has been modified, but that you need to reload the systemd daemons. Nowadays /etc/fstab is really just a backwards-compatible configuration source for systemd. When you reboot, systemd will read this file and convert your added line to a systemd unit. Currently this line has not yet been added to systemd. You can verify this with the command:
   
   # systemctl list-units | grep -i "gdrive"
   
   Notice this command is run as "root" (you can also use "sudo" instead). This command should find no units containing the name "gdrive".
   
   "systemctl" is kind of like the control command for systemd, and we're telling it to list the units that systemd knows about, piping ("|") the results through "grep" to display only those lines that contain the phrase "gdrive", regardless of capitalization ("-i"). If you leave off the | grep -i "gdrive", you'll get a list of all the units that systemd knows about.
   
   These units are typically stored in /usr/lib/systemd/system (for system-installed units that usually should not be tinkered with) and /etc/systemd/system (for locally-configured units). You can also ls in those directories to verify there are no "gdrive"-related units there.
   
   But we don't have to wait for a reboot to let systemd know about the changes to fstab. We can just reload the daemons with:
   
   # systemctl --daemon-reload
   
   But that still doesn't work, because the old mount command doesn't recognize the "rclone" type (the systemd units still weren't created. But this is easy to fix: we just need to create a symlink, like so:
   
   # ln -s /usr/bin/rclone /sbin/mount.rclone
   
   Reload the systemd daemons again:
   
   # systemctl --daemon-reload
   
   and now you can mount (as your normal user, not 'root') your "remote":
   
   $ mount /home/[your user//GDrive4Work
   
   You should now be able to access your Google Drive from the command-line or from any of your usual file managers, etc. Be aware though, that a reboot will mount the drive as "root", and your normal user probably will no longer have access to the Drive.
   
   While the drive is mounted, you can also see that systemd knows about this "unit":
   
   # systemctl list-units | grep -i "gdrive"
   
   ... even though there still isn't a unit file in the two unit-file directories mentioned above.
   
   $ ls -R /etc/systemd/system | grep -i gdrive
   $ ls -R /usr/lib/systemd/system | grep -i gdrive
   
   I was thinking this method created a unit-file automagically in /lib, which you could them move to /etc and tailor to your needs, but apparently I'm wrong about that. I was then going to write in the next section about using a systemd unit to mount the Drive, but after I wrote most of this I realized it also would mount the Drive at boot-up, regardless of the owner being logged in, unless more hoops were jumped through to get all the t's crossed and all the i's dotted.
   
   
3. Other methods such as a cron job to mount the drive on login, etc, but the above methods are probably your best bet.
   

Understanding "Church"

I normally don't like to link to outside content for fear of bit-rot, but this article is worth pointing to, and I don't want to just copy/paste the contents here and potentially take away from their visits.

https://woodlandhillsnashville.com/topical/understanding-church/understanding-church.html

 

Nathan Cox had recommended a video. It's a good lesson, but with bad audio that made it very hard for me to follow. However, I made notes that I believe got the gist of the presentation, and share them here.

 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SJ4h8qy5mg

A lot of guys preach to have a job.

 

My job's to stir up the ant hill. And leave town.

 

Before becoming a Christian, I was an atheist.

 

A concept I was impressed with was "Calling Bible things by Bible Names", which comes out of 1 Cor 2, "words taught by the Holy Spirit".

[

13 We also speak these things, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things.

]

 

He calls it an "immersistry" instead of a"baptistry".

 

He was asked if he used a piano. Saying "yes", he was challenged to look into the scriptures. They quit using the piano until they could do some research. He studied the Greek, etc, and came to conclude that when somebody says, "The Greek says", you better be wary.

 

Talking to a CoC preacher, he wondered why it was okay for the preacher's young girls to listen to instrumental "Crocodile Rock", but a stringed instrumental version of "The Old Rugged Cross" was not okay; it didn't make sense to him.

 

That led to Heb 13:15....

[

15 Through him, then, let’s offer up a sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of lips which proclaim allegiance to his name.

]

 

And 1 Cor 16...

 [

Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I commanded the assemblies of Galatia, you do likewise. 2 On the first day of every week, let each one of you save, as he may prosper, that no collections are made when I come. 3 When I arrive, I will send whoever you approve with letters to carry your gracious gift to Jerusalem. 4 If it is appropriate for me to go also, they will go with me.

]

 

He asked if there was any scripture that supported the idea of a collection in worship for the local church; this passage concerns a special collection for a distant church.

 

Everyone's asking the question about instrumental music in worship; maybe we should ask for the New Testament definition of "worship".

 

"That'd probably be a good question, wouldn't it? If we're gonna call Bible things by Bible names, well then let's, let's get this definition figured out. ... Let the Bible define it."

 

The particular Greek word is proskenueo. Alexander the Great, as Emperor; the Persians bowed their faces to the ground, and Alexander kindda liked that. He tried to get his loyal Macedonian cavalry to do the same thing, and they wouldn't do it, because they thought proskenueo was reserved for the gods, and they knew Alexander was just a man.

 

Heb 11:

[

21 By faith, Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and worshiped [proskeneuo], leaning on the top of his staff.

]

 

Patriarchs - Adam-Moses - Worship 1.0

 

Law of Moses - Moses to death of Christ - Worship 2.0

 

Death of Christ forward - New Covenant - Worship 3.0

 

proskeneuo is a physical act, of bowing. This was Worship 1.0

 

Worship 2.0 is an upgrade to become a spiritual act.

 

A Principle of scripture: first the physical, then the spiritual.

 

Worship 2.0 - John 4:24 - The only place a Jew can worship is in the temple, and the only time a Jew can worship is on the feast days. The synagogue meeting on the Sabbath was not for worship, but for reading of the law and the prophets (Acts 13 - 15 After the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent to them, saying, “Brothers, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, speak.”).

 

"And you see that terminology all the way through."

Ex: John 12:20 "They are going up to worship at the feast."

Ex: Acts 8 "[The Ethiopian" had come to Jerusalem to worship."

 

That's why the woman at the well said , "You Jews say we must worship at Jerusalem."

 

Worship 2.0 = at the temple, during feasts; go up and participate in all the doings. The priests serve; the people bow in the presence of the Lord, in the temple, singing the Songs of Ascent as they wind their way up the stairs to the courtyard on the temple mount - "I was glad when they said to me, 'Let’s go to Yahweh’s house!'” - Psalm 122:1).

 

Worship 3.0

 

Worship is the most important thing in life. The "covering cherub"? wanted worship so badly he began a rebellion that is going on still today.

 

The only place that talks about "new covenant worship" is John 4:23-24.

"in spirit and in truth"

 

There's an outer-man and an inner-man. We live according to the inner-man. This is the spirit - the inner-man.

 

What are you going to put your emphasis on? That which is decaying, or that which isn't?

 

We pay a lot of attention to the outer-man, but it's decaying.

 

What are you going to put your emphasis on? What's God gonna put his emphasizes on?

 

The spirit of God lives in our carcass, having cleaned up the inside in order to move in.

 

The veil of the temple was torn, making the temple one room.

 

The Bible reveals to us the realm we can't see, the spiritual realm.

 

We're ushered into the one room of the temple by the blood of Jesus.

 

Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brothers, boldness to enter into the holy place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the way which he dedicated for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh, 21 and having a great priest over God’s house, 22 let’s draw near with a true heart in fullness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and having our body washed with pure water, 23 let’s hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering; for he who promised is faithful.

 

When our bodies are washed, our hearts are sprinkled. We are given immediate, instant, and present access, because we're in the presence of God.

 

Any mental image you have, Ezekiel or whatever, of someone being in the presence of God, what is it? Proskeneuo.

 

"The point is... our inner-person is in perpetual proskuneo in the presence of him who is and was and is to come. And that's Worship 3.0."

 

Can you show me any place in the New Testament where the church game together to worship?

 

I can understand how the Lord's Supper might be considered worship.

 

But there's another word, latreo, and that has to do with "service".

 

In the Old Testament, the priests served, and the people worshiped. So collectively, the people of Israel worshiped and served.

 

King Uzziah gets too big for his britches, and says, "I want to waltz into the temple, and I want to burn incense to the Lord." The priests resisted, but he took the censor in hand and walked across the threshold, and leprosy broke out all over him. The priests hustled him out into isolation, where he remained the rest of his life. [Not quite an accurate retelling, but the gist is correct. 2 Chron 26]

 

The message is that only the priests offer service.

 

Sacrifice is service.

 

<mumble mumble Christians mumble people <mumble> priests mumble>

 

Rom 12:1 Therefore I urge you, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service.

 

<Thanuel's Big Boys? added "worship" ... could do that?> But they did it.

 

"Old King James does the best" at rendering the word for "service".

 

The New Testament priest offers his body in service to God. Everything external is service. Internal is "worship". External is "service". On the inside are "the people"; on the outside are "the priests".

 

<So let me kinks then mumble?> about singing, praying, giving, and Lord's Supper. When we start doing those things, is that going to be "service"? Or is it going to be "worship"?

 

My guess would be, "service". Let's check it out.

 

Heb 13:15 ("which we quoted earlier") 15 Through him, then, let’s offer up a sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of lips which proclaim allegiance to his name.

 

"Sacrifice"; that's what a priest does; that's "service".

 

16 But don’t forget to be doing good and sharing, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

 

"Doing the Lord's work" and everything that goes along with it: "service".

 

How about "preaching"? That's one of the so-called five channels of public worship. <mumble where words come from some time.> They come from the same place as "rapture" and "accept Jesus into your heart", is where they come from.

 

Rom 15:15 But I write the more boldly to you in part, as reminding you, because of the grace that was given to me by God, 16 that I should be a servant of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, serving as a priest of the Good News of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be made acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

 

See, "preaching" is "service".

 

1 Cor 10:14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men. Judge what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, isn’t it a sharing of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, isn’t it a sharing of the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf of bread, we, who are many, are one body; for we all partake of the one loaf of bread. 18 Consider Israel according to the flesh. Don’t those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar?

 

Whazzat? <mumble> priest.

 

Eating food sacrificed is a participation in the sacrifice. Personal anecdote about altar in Russia.

 

Heb 13:10 We have an altar from which those who serve the holy tabernacle have no right to eat.

 

My point is that the Lord's Supper is "service". It's a sacrifice participated in by new covenant priests. The old covenant priests are out; they don't get in.

 

We "know"...

- prayer

- singing

- collection

- preaching

- the Lord's Supper

... is worship, don't we?

 How do we "know" that? There's not a verse in scripture that says any of that is "worship".

 

<False formility is a false dot.> False terminology creates false <concepts?>.

The following is written by Brian Zahnd.

I have a problem with the Bible. Here’s my problem…

I’m an ancient Egyptian. I’m a comfortable Babylonian. I’m a Roman in his villa.

That’s my problem. See, I’m trying to read the Bible for all it’s worth, but I’m not a Hebrew slave suffering in Egypt. I’m not a conquered Judean deported to Babylon. I’m not a first century Jew living under Roman occupation.

I’m a citizen of a superpower. I was born among the conquerors. I live in the empire. But I want to read the Bible and think it’s talking to me. This is a problem.

One of the most remarkable things about the Bible is that in it we find the narrative told from the perspective of the poor, the oppressed, the enslaved, the conquered, the occupied, the defeated. This is what makes it prophetic. We know that history is written by the winners. This is true — except in the case of the Bible it’s the opposite! This is the subversive genius of the Hebrew prophets. They wrote from a bottom-up perspective.

Imagine a history of colonial America written by Cherokee Indians and African slaves. That would be a different way of telling the story! And that’s what the Bible does. It’s the story of Egypt told by the slaves. The story of Babylon told by the exiles. The story of Rome told by the occupied. What about those brief moments when Israel appeared to be on top? In those cases the prophets told Israel’s story from the perspective of the peasant poor as a critique of the royal elite. Like when Amos denounced the wives of the Israelite aristocracy as “the fat cows of Bashan.”

Every story is told from a vantage point; it has a bias. The bias of the Bible is from the vantage point of the underclass. But what happens if we lose sight of the prophetically subversive vantage point of the Bible? What happens if those on top read themselves into the story, not as imperial Egyptians, Babylonians, and Romans, but as the Israelites? That’s when you get the bizarre phenomenon of the elite and entitled using the Bible to endorse their dominance as God’s will. This is Roman Christianity after Constantine. This is Christendom on crusade. This is colonists seeing America as their promised land and the native inhabitants as Canaanites to be conquered. This is the whole history of European colonialism. This is Jim Crow. This is the American prosperity gospel. This is the domestication of Scripture. This is making the Bible dance a jig for our own amusement.

As Jesus preached the arrival of the kingdom of God he would frequently emphasize the revolutionary character of God’s reign by saying things like, “the last will be first and the first last.” How does Jesus’ first-last aphorism strike you? I don’t know about you, but it makes this modern day Roman a bit nervous.

Imagine this: A powerful charismatic figure arrives on the world scene and amasses a great following by announcing the arrival of a new arrangement of the world where those at the bottom are to be promoted and those on top are to have their lifestyle “restructured.” How do people receive this? I can imagine the Bangladeshis saying, “When do we start?!” and the Americans saying, “Hold on now, let’s not get carried away!”

Now think about Jesus announcing the arrival of God’s kingdom with the proclamation of his counterintuitive Beatitudes. When Jesus said, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth,” how was that received? Well, it depends on who is hearing it. The poor Galilean peasant would hear it as good news (gospel), while the Roman in his villa would hear it with deep suspicion. (I know it’s an anachronism, but I can imagine Claudius saying something like, “sounds like socialism to me!”)

And that’s the challenge I face in reading the Bible. I’m not the Galilean peasant. Who am I kidding! I’m the Roman in his villa and I need to be honest about it. I too can hear the gospel of the kingdom as good news (because it is!), but first I need to admit its radical nature and not try to tame it to endorse my inherited entitlement.

I am a (relatively) wealthy white American male. Which is fine, but it means I have to work hard at reading the Bible right. I have to see myself basically as aligned with Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, and Caesar. In that case, what does the Bible ask of me? Voluntary poverty? Not necessarily. But certainly the Bible calls me to deep humility — a humility demonstrated in hospitality and generosity. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with being a relatively well-off white American male, but I better be humble, hospitable, and generous!

If I read the Bible with the appropriate perspective and humility I don’t use the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus as a proof-text to condemn others to hell. I use it as a reminder that I’m a rich man and Lazarus lies at my door. I don’t use the conquest narratives of Joshua to justify Manifest Destiny. Instead I see myself as a Rahab who needs to welcome newcomers. I don’t fancy myself as Elijah calling down fire from heaven. I’m more like Nebuchadnezzar who needs to humble himself lest I go insane.

I have a problem with the Bible, but all is not lost. I just need to read it standing on my head. I need to change my perspective. If I can accept that the Bible is trying to lift up those who are unlike me, then perhaps I can read the Bible right.”

Old Covenant vs New

As per Jeremiah 31, the difference between the old and new covenants is that the first consisted of God's law written on stone tablets, whereas the second consists of God's law written in the inward parts and in the heart.

Ten Commandments Nailed to the Cross?

It is a common misunderstanding that Col 2:14-17 says that the Ten Commandments were nailed to the cross. But that's not what Col 2:14-17 says. Because of the similarity in wording between this passage and the passage in Ephesians chapter 2, we need to look at both, starting with the Ephesians passage. But before getting to that, let's look at the word "ordinances".

The Word "Ordinances"

The word "ordinances" (dogmasin) in v. Col 2:14 is used in the "New Testament" five times, three of which clearly refer to human-uttered decrees, not God-uttered ones, and two of them being found here and in the sister passage of Eph 2:15. In the Greek Septuagint version of the "Old Testament", this word is only used in the book of Daniel, and only to refer to human decrees, not decrees from God. (A different word, dikaioma, is used ten times in the NT, and refers to God-uttered decrees and righteousness.) Paul knew his Greek, and he knew his Greek scriptures, and it seems odd that he would use the word "ordinances" to refer to God-uttered ordinances when it seems to only be used every where else in the scriptures for human-uttered ordinances.

The Ephesians Passage

WEB Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that once you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “uncircumcision” by that which is called “circumcision” (in the flesh, made by hands), 12 that you were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off are made near in the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our peace, who made both one, and broke down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in his 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 through it. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far off and to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and of the household of God, 20 being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone; 21 in whom the whole building, fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are built together for a habitation of God in the Spirit.

If "ordinances" refers to human-uttered decrees rather than God-uttered ones, then Paul is saying here that whatever is abolished is contained in human-uttered decrees.

Whatever was abolished was abolished for the purpose of making one new man out of the two (Jew and Gentile), as well as for the purpose of reconciling that one new man with God. So whatever the hostility is that was abolished, it kept a middle wall of separation between Jew and Gentile. The God-uttered law of Moses (and/or the Ten Commandments) did not create this separation; in fact, the law repeatedly enjoins the Jew to treat the non-Jew as one of their own.

However, the human-uttered Oral Law of the scribes and Pharisees did create this wall between Jew and non-Jew. Some of their ancient documents refer to this wall as a "fence", and interestingly enough, in the Greek of the phrase "middle wall of separation" is the word for "fence'. When Peter visited the non-Jew, God-fearing Cornelius, he opened the discussion by saying it was not lawful for a Jew to visit a non-Jew, but God had made him to understand that God did not agree with this "law"; this law can not be found in the God-uttered scriptures, but it can be found in the human-uttered Oral Law of the ancient Pharisees.

The "law of commandments contained in ordinances" phrase seems to refer to human-uttered Oral Law that separated Gentile from Jew. God's law never made this separation, but the Pharisees with their traditions did make the separation.

By drawing Gentile believers into the commonwealth of Israel, and making them part of the Israelite family of God, this "fence" no longer applied to them. The Oral Law, with its fence, it's middle wall of separation, is untouched, but the people whom it would have affected is no longer affected by it, because they are no longer foreigners.

So in effect, the division, the hostility, the separation, enforced by these human-uttered ordinances was nailed to the cross, breaking down the middle wall of separation between Jew and Gentile. It was not a law, either the Oral Law or the Ten Commandments law, which was nailed to the cross, but rather the division between Jew and non-Jew that was nailed to the cross. This nailing is about peace between Jew and non-Jew, and then peace between that united new man and God; it is not about doing away with a legal system. On the cross, Jesus bore our sins against a legal system, not the legal system itself.

The Colossians Passage

WEB Col 2:11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 You were dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh. He made you alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 wiping out the handwriting in ordinances which was against us. He has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross. 15 Having stripped the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. 

The phrase here in Colossians is similar to the phrase in Ephesians, but it turns out to be an ancient Jewish idiom. As many Bible translations now render it, it refers to a "criminal record", a list of the laws we have broken, an "IOU", or a "mortgage debt". The Phillips version, while not at all a literal rendering, colors the meaning in quite nicely: "Christ has utterly wiped out the damning evidence of broken laws and commandments which always hung over our heads, and has completely annulled it by nailing it over his own head on the cross".

Conclusion

This passage, Col 2:14-17, is not telling us that the Ten Commandments have been nailed to the cross. It's telling us that that the legal charges against us in a court of law, which normally would be nailed above the head of the person being executed on a cross (as Jesus' "charges" were nailed above his head on his cross - Luke 23:38), were nailed above Jesus' head instead of ours, freeing us from the charges and placing them on him.

The sister passage in Eph 2, also is not telling us that the Ten Commandments have been nailed to the cross. It's telling us that non-Jewish believers in the Messiah are just as Jewish as the native Jews, and that the separation between the two, as contained in human-uttered oral traditions, has been nailed to the cross.

Originally published at: https://kentwest.blogspot.com/2023/07/ten-commandments-nailed-to-cross.html

Sign-Post to Jerusalem Church of Christ, circa 50 A.D.