Tradition-Awareness Exercise

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

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

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

It was these traditions which Yahshua condemned as vain worship.

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

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

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

Welcome to the Party! - Heb 12:23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

²²But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

²³To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect....

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

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

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

The Denominational Church

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

===

dan best wrote:

To Shawn

You said,

"Contrary to popular belief, the Messiah’s ekklesia is inclusive of what some refer to as “denominations".

How did you determine this? This is a question that has been debated for many years. Since there are no mention of denominations or its sub groups in the New Testament it seems to me that this is an unanswerable question from God at this time. Now it is evident to me that a disciple can be considered by God as a member of the ekklesia without any involvement in denominations or their sub group.

Kent replied:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My two cents.

Inspiration

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

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

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

Dressed in Light

On the Church_of_Christ Yahoo!Group from several years ago:

billysh226 wrote:

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

Kent responds:

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

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

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

Being so clothed, they were not ashamed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drop-Box Giving at Church

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

George K. Howsepian wrote:

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

Kent responds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revisiting "Which NT Church"?, Part 2

heb12347 wrote:

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

Kent responds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revisiting "Which NT Church"?

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

===

heb12347 wrote:

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

Kent responds:

Which NT church?

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

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

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

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

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

Helping the Street Beggars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would this plan (or something similar) work?

Top Evolutionist Says Creationist Critics are Right, Just Not Scientific

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

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

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

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

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

And You Thought Dragons Were Mythical

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






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

Just Wandering Through Some of Acts

As part of a conversation elsewhere:

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so forth and so on.

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

Direct Operation of the Holy Spirit

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

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

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

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

Death and Sin

Note in the following text:

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

^{HCSB Rom 5:12} Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all men, because all sinned. ¹³ In fact, sin was in the world before the law, but sin is not charged to one's account when there is no law. ¹⁴ Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam's transgression. He is a prototype of the Coming One.

¹⁵ But the gift is not like the trespass. For if by the one man's trespass the many died, how much more have the grace of God and the gift overflowed to the many by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ. ¹⁶ And the gift is not like the one man's sin, because from one sin came the judgment, resulting in condemnation, but from many trespasses came the gift, resulting in justification. ¹⁷ Since by the one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive the overflow of grace and the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

¹⁸ So then, as through one trespass there is condemnation for everyone, so also through one righteous act there is life-giving justification for everyone. ¹⁹ For just as through one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so also through the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. ²⁰ The law came along to multiply the trespass. But where sin multiplied, grace multiplied even more, ²¹ so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace will reign through righteousness, resulting in eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Note in the following text:

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

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

Note in the following text:

* It is our physical body which will be resurrected

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

Note in the following text:

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

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

Note in the following text:

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

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

Note in the following text:

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

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

Note in the following text:

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

^{HCSB Gen 3:17} And He said to Adam, "Because you listened to your wife's voice and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'Do not eat from it':
The ground is cursed because of you.
You will eat from it by means of painful labor
all the days of your life.

¹⁸ It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.

¹⁹ You will eat bread by the sweat of your brow
until you return to the ground,
since you were taken from it.
For you are dust,
and you will return to dust."

Note in the following text:

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Out of Context

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

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

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

In this context,

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

and his response:

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

And then he mentions:

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

and once again repeats:

unless you repent, you will all perish as well!

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Nail, See Hand

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

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

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

see nail see hand

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

YHWH tells us to see...

That's Not What The Text Says

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

There are no spiritual blessings outside of Christ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Loose Translation of Isaiah 41 by RVL

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

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

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

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

I have placed you in this land...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think chapter 43 makes it even more clear:

I have placed you in this land...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Non-Bible Material from God?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Orphan Spirit

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

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

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

* falls into a spirit of performance. Seeking approval.

* unable to put down roots.

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

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

* constantly in need of recognition.

* easily offended.

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

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

* an attitude of "I know".

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

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

* reject others before they can reject you.