The Church's Finances

Every week, the plate is passed around the congregation.

Every week, the funds so collected are doled out according to the budget plan, paying salaries, electric bills, mortgages, TV show expenses, and if anything is left over, maybe an orphan's home or a few dollars into a local person's overdue medical bills.

That's the modern way of handling the church's money.

What was it like in the first century church?

The very first time a collection of money is mentioned in the church is Acts 2:44-45, which says:

And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.

Notice what is done with the money: it is shared with anyone having need. (I believe the context limits that "anyone" to "anyone within the group", but I could be wrong.)

And what of the very next example? It's in Acts 4:23ff:

Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of his possessions was his own, but instead they held everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was on all of them. For there was not a needy person among them, because all those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet. This was then distributed to each person as anyone had a need.

Notice again what the Scriptures teach: money given to the church is to be distributed to those who have a need.

What about other examples?

The next example is in Acts 6, where we find that the distribution to the needy has become such a pressing matter that a special group of ministers ("deacons") are appointed to handle the day-to-day details, freeing the apostles (who had previously been responsible for the task) to do their job of preaching. The apostles were doing the preaching; the deacons were distributing the incoming funds to the needy, not to paying the church's bills.

1 Timothy 5 lays out some guidelines for this distributive effort, and in the process makes it clear that paying the bills of your own family takes precedence over other expenditures, but if you can't, then the church should kick in. Someone who doesn't provide for his own family is worse than an infidel according to this passage. And those who receive funds from the church should be known for good works.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 reiterates this last point:

If anyone isn't willing to work, he should not eat.

Titus 3:14 indicates that a main thrust of our efforts is to meet the cases of urgent need. As The Message puts it:

Our people have to learn to be diligent in their work so that all necessities are met (especially among the needy) and they don't end up with nothing to show for their lives.

The very purpose of having a job is not to give to the church to build a nicer building, but to give something to the needy, according to Ephesians 4:28:

... [H]e must do honest work with his own hands, so that he has something to share with anyone in need.

And again, Paul reminds the church in Romans 12:13:

Share with God's people who are in need.

Even that well-known passage from 1 Corinthians 16, read so often from the pulpit to persuade Christians to give to the work of the church, is ALL about giving to the needy, and not at all about paying church bills. This is clear from verse 1:

Now about the collection for God's people ....

Any other use of this passage for justification of doing anything except collecting for God's people, no matter how good those tasks may be, is a twisting of the scripture.

Now, let me make it clear that the church does have a responsibility to pay its bills, including the salaries of its staff. But I believe we've turned the pyramid upside down; the base of the pyramid, the bulk of church finances, should be going toward helping Christians meet their financial needs, with the tip, the small portion, going toward church bills. We've inverted that pyramid, and have done so at the risk of hearing these words from Jesus (Matt 25):

Then he will say to those on his left, "Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me."

They also will answer, "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?"

He will reply, "I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

Birds Not Evolved From Dinos

From EvolutionNews.org:

Archaeopteryx isn’t the only evolutionary icon losing its claim as the ancestor of birds. In recent months we’ve seen paleontologists increasingly arguing that the entire clade of dinosaurs should no longer be considered ancestral to birds. As the WSJ article states:

There are lingering doubts that birds today are descendants of dinosaurs. Researchers at Oregon State University recently argued that the distinctive anatomy that gives birds the lung capacity needed for flight means it is unlikely that birds descended from dinosaurs like archaeopteryx and its kin. Their findings were published in June in the Journal of Morphology.

As paleontologist John Ruben of Oregon State was quoted saying when his article was published:

But old theories die hard, Ruben said, especially when it comes to some of the most distinctive and romanticized animal species in world history.

"Frankly, there's a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises questions," Ruben said. In some museum displays, he said, the birds-descended-from-dinosaurs evolutionary theory has been portrayed as a largely accepted fact, with an asterisk pointing out in small type that "some scientists disagree."

Why Live Through Suffering?

JOHN_A_DESIGNER writes at Telic Thoughts:

The idea of heaven is actually a later development in Jewish and Christian theology. Read the book of Job. The closest that Job gets to the idea of an after life is the question: “If a man dies, will he live again?” So then, what is the book of Job really about? It is about a man confronted with severe suffering who is struggling to find the meaning in the midst of his suffering. It is a struggle between two choices: “curse God and die” or “though He slay me I will trust him.” Faith is not about the after life. Faith is about this world. What faith will I need in heaven where there is no suffering or challenges?

On the other hand, heaven is always presented in the Bible as a reward. How can it be a reward if it is not preceded by challenges?

Interesting thoughts....

Should Christians Sneak Candy Into Movie Theaters?

The following was written by Sam Stinson on the Church_Of_Christ Yahoo!Groups list.


"You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another."
(Leviticus, 19:11, NASB)

Long before I became a Christian, I remember my family taking me to movies when I was a young child. We hardly ever bought popcorn, soft drinks, or candy at the movie theater--in fact I can't remember a single time when we did. When I became a teenager I remedied this by going to dollars stores and purchasing cheap boxes of candy and hiding them in the pockets of my pants, my coat, or on one of my friends. I justified this behavior to myself by saying, "I have a right to eat whatever I want and to buy it from whomever I choose." I also remember thinking, "The cost of food in movie theaters is six times what it is in other stores! Why should I not try to save money?"

Years later, after becoming a Christian, I realized that this behavior was not in keeping for a Christian. Here are thoughts along this line for your consideration.

1. Sneaking candy into movie theaters is a violation of a posted theater policy. I've never encountered a movie theater which permitted its patrons to bring in food or drinks from home. Most of us would never knowingly bring a video camera into a theater and tape the movie we're watching in order to distribute it illegally on the Internet. But sneaking candy into the movies is equally dishonest. Why is that? Because knowingly acting in violation of any business's policy and pretending that I'm not is intentionally dealing falsely with others, a clear violation of scripture as noted above.

2. Sneaking candy into movie theaters destroys the theater's ability to make a profit. Have you ever heard someone say, "The concessions is where theaters make their money!" In many cases this is true. If I am truly eating something I am not authorized to bring, based on my acceptance of the agreement to not bring outside food into a theater, I have deprived the theater of its profit. If this is indeed stealing, Christians should cease from this practice. (Eph. 4:28)

3. Sneaking candy into movie theaters creates a bad example for others. Christians and non-Christians, especially children, can be influenced by the behavior of others. If others see us doing this practice, they will likely imitate it. If it is something that causes us to sin, it may cause them to sin when they do as we do.

4. It is often the "little things" that make Christians look like hypocrites to the world. A Christian might say, "I've never murdered, or committed adultery, or cheated on my taxes." Very well indeed. But one who stumbles in one point of honesty has violated the truth. "He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much." (Luk. 16:10)

Biblical Profanity

Over the past few years, I've begun to come to the conclusion that the translators who bring the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into English have skewed their results sometimes according to their own sensibilities rather than accurately portraying what the text says.

One such case is in Philipians 3:8, wherein Paul is claiming that in contrast to the value of knowing Christ Jesus, all other things are "rubbish".

This word "rubbish" (skuvbalon) seems to be a sanitized version of what the actual word means. Here's a summary from Daniel B. Wallace:

That skuvbalon took on the nuance of a vulgar expression with emotive connotations (thus, roughly equivalent to the English “crap, s**t”) is probable in light of the following considerations: (1) its paucity of usage in Greek literature (“Only with hesitation does literature seem to have adopted it from popular speech” says Lang in TDNT 7:445); (2) it is used frequently in emotionally charged contexts (as are its verbal cognates) in which the author wishes to invoke revulsion in his audience; (3) there is evidence that there were other, more common and more acceptable terms referring to the same thing (in particular, the agricultural term koprov and the medical term perivsswma); (4) diachronically, the shock value of the term seems to have worn off through the centuries; and (5) a natural transfer of the literal to a metaphorical usage, in which disgust, revulsion, or worthlessness are still in view, argues for this meaning as well. Nevertheless, that its shock value was not fully what “s**t” would be is suggested in the fact that in the Hellenistic period (c. 330 BCE-330 CE) the word was also used on occasion for “gleanings” or “table scraps.”

(From http://bible.org/article/brief-word-study-skuvbalon - Go read the entire article for a fuller treatment)

In other words, it appears that the word which God inspired is somewhere between "crap" and "sh*t".

Offends our sensibilities, doesn't it? But if it's true (and it seems to be), it is what it is.

The Church's Educational Responsibility

A year or so I came across this passage:

He ... must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need.
-- Ephesians 4:28

More recently I came across this one:

Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.
-- 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12

It seems to me that a fundamental goal of Christian maturity is to have the necessary resources to:

1) not be a burden on other people,

and

2) to help relieve the burdens other people have.

I think it may be time for the church to start providing its members with the resources to do these two things. That means encouraging young people to finish school and get a college education, and to avoid derailments of those plans (like getting pregnant or dropping out), and to finance education of those who missed their first opportunity while young, and perhaps to even provide career counseling.

Many of my church peers would scoff at such a notion, believing that the business of the church is to "spread the Gospel", and not to get wrapped up in "social issues". But if I'm reading those passages above correctly, I think it may be time to at least start thinking in these directions.

One nation! Under God! Indivisible?!

There's a lot of discussion about the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. I have no qualm with that phrase. I would, however, be disturbed for it to be removed, for no matter how often the claim is made that "God is dead", I'm convinced He is alive and well and in control, and the nation that acknowledges Him will be blessed above the one that does not.

But I can't recite the Pledge as it is commonly known. I have a problem with the phrase "indivisible".

The very first sentence of the Declaration of Independence, which is the basis for the very existence of the United States of America, emphasizes this right to separate. It says:

When ... it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them ... and to assume ... the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, [it's only respectful to say why].

And then the next paragraph states that when government gets too big for its britches,

it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government....

The War of Northern Aggression (aka The War Between the States, aka The Civil War) was fought over this very principle (the issue of slavery was just the trigger). The South had had enough, and had dissolved the political bands with their Northern brethren, but the North illegally forced, at gunpoint, the South to remain.

In this war, the South was doing the exact same thing the original 13 Colonies had done almost a hundred years earlier, and the North was doing the exact same thing the English had done. The only difference was that in the latter war, the captors won and Freedom, Independence, was lost.

History is written by the victors, and so are cultural bindings such as the Pledge of Allegiance; thus we have the phrase. But I'm standing on the founding principles of the United States of America. Thus I recite:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.

We're still one nation; that's how I prefer it. But the nation is legally not "indivisible".

Be One

All Paul is saying is to meet each others' needs. He's not saying no one can ever say "no", or even that your husband has control of your body. He's saying that your body is his, and his is yours, and that you are "one". The Hebrew word behind this concept is "echad"; it's the same word used in the Shema, which observant Jews recite every day: "Hear, Oh Israel! YHWH is God; YHWH is one!" (although they substitute "Lord", Adonai, for the actual God-given textual rendering of YHWH). The first time this word is used, it is used to join the evening and the morning into a complete whole, Day Echad. The next time it is used, it is used to join a man and a woman into an Echad flesh. Yahshua declared himself and YHWH to be Echad.

The ideal is that a husband and wife are Echad, One, and that what pleases one should please the other. If you don't have that with your husband, sex ain't gonna fix it, and the lack of sex ain't gonna hurt it.

Notes in a private message concerning 1 Corinthians 7.

Confess Your Sins One to Another

James 5:16 says:

Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, so that you may be healed.

Two things:

1) It does not say, "Confess your sins to the whole church", although I believe that when the sin is public, the confession should be public. Rather it says confess your sins "to one another"; perhaps the implication is that we should have one-on-one relationships in which we feel comfortable opening up to each other totally; you can't do that with a large group; you can do that with one, maybe two or three, intimate friends. I think there may be an important psychologically-healthy injunction here.

2) It does not say, "Confess that you have sinned" to one another. Rather, it says, "Confess your sins". It seems to me that we are short-circuiting the Biblical healing process when we go before the church and say, "I've sinned, please pray for me", when what we should say is, "I've sinned by X, please pray for me".

For example, let's say I cussed out the check-out girl at the store as I bought condoms in preparation for a night with a prostitute. The next Sunday morning I go forward and confess, "I've sinned, please pray for me". Should the church assume I'm repenting of abusing the check-out girl, or for fornicating, or both, or neither? For the forgiveness of which sin(s) should the church pray?

Maybe I'm wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

The Context Behind 1 Corinthians 16:1-2

Then one of them, named Agabus, stood up and predicted by the Spirit that there would be a severe famine throughout the Roman world. This took place during the time of Claudius. So each of the disciples, according to his ability, determined to send relief to the brothers who lived in Judea. This they did, sending it to the elders by means of Barnabas and Saul.

Acts 11:28-30

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

Gal 2:9-10

Now about the collection for the saints: you should do the same as I instructed the Galatian churches. On the first day of the week, each of you is to set something aside and save to the extent that he prospers, so that no collections will need to be made when I come. And when I arrive, I will send those whom you recommend by letter to carry your gracious gift to Jerusalem. If it is also suitable for me to go, they will travel with me.

1 Cor 16:1-4

... the churches of Macedonia ... on their own ... begged us insistently for the privilege of sharing in the ministry to the saints....

Now I am giving an opinion on this because it is profitable for you, who a year ago began not only to do something but also to desire it. But now finish the task as well, that just as there was eagerness to desire it, so there may also be a completion from what you have. For if the eagerness is there, it is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what he does not have. It is not that there may be relief for others and hardship for you, but it is a question of equality — at the present time your surplus is [available] for their need, so that their abundance may also become [available] for your need, that there may be equality. As it has been written:

The person who gathered much did not have too much,

and the person who gathered little did not have too little.

Thanks be to God who put the same diligence for you into the heart of Titus. For he accepted our urging and, being very diligent, went out to you by his own choice. With him we have sent the brother who is praised throughout the churches for his gospel ministry. And not only that, but he was also appointed by the churches to accompany us with this gift that is being administered by us for the glory of the Lord Himself and to show our eagerness [to help]. We are taking this precaution so no one can find fault with us concerning this large sum administered by us.

2 Cor 8

Now, however, I am traveling to Jerusalem to serve the saints; for Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution to the poor among the saints in Jerusalem.

Rom 15:25-26

God Has Gifted E With Wisdom

And that's all I have to say about that.

The Changing Text of the Bible

It's been a staple of the hermeneutics with which I grew up that the Bible does not change over time. However, in recent weeks, I've come to question that doctrine.

Think about the prophecy of the Virgin Birth. In Isaiah 7, the enemies of Israel have plotted against her, but God prophesies that by the time Isaiah gets married and has a kid and the kid is a few years old, the enemies will have been destroyed. Here's the text of verses 14-16:

Therefore, the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive, have a son, and name him Immanuel. By the time he learns to reject what is bad and choose what is good, he will be eating butter and honey. For before the boy knows to reject what is bad and choose what is good, the land of the two kings you dread will be abandoned.

For hundreds of years, readers of the Bible understood this to be a prophecy which was fulfilled in Isaiah's son.

But then, Yahshua (Jesus) was born of the virgin, Mary (Luke 2:26ff):

In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man named Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary.

and suddenly this prophecy took on a new meaning, as explained by Matthew in Matt 1:20-25:

Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: See, the virgin will become pregnant and give birth to a son ....

As far as humans were concerned, the meaning of the text changed: for hundreds of years it only referred to Isaiah's wife and son; now, it also refers to Mary and Yahshua.

This idea of "dual fulfillment" of prophecy is well-accepted by many Bible scholars, but what seems amazing to me about it is that it sometimes means that the text has changed its meaning, when viewed from a human standpoint. It might be argued that God had always intended both meanings, but from a human viewpoint, the text changed meaning after the second fulfillment gave it the new meaning.

This is not the only example we have of the Scriptures not having a fixed meaning. In Zechariah 11, Zechariah is paid low wages of 30 pieces of silver, and God tells him to "throw it to the potter". I doubt very seriously that anyone reading that passage took any other meaning from that passage until Judas threw away his payment of 30 silver pieces for betraying Yahshua (Matt 27:3-10).

These are inspired examples of the meaning of a text not being fixed. But the process still goes on within the church, perhaps by the Holy Spirit's leading. For example, Isaiah 62:2 prophesies that the nation of Israel will inherit a new name. The immediate fulfillment, and probably the only meaning taken from this passage for hundreds of years, is that God was using a poetic means to tell the nation that it would no longer be called "Deserted" or "Desolate", but rather "I delight in Her" and "Married" (62:4). But thousands of years later, the church often points to this promise of a "new name", and sees Acts 11:26 as the fulfillment of that promise, in which "the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch". To these Christians, the meaning of Isaiah 62:2 has changed from the black-and-white meaning given in 62:4, to that given in Acts 11:26.

The conclusion is that the meaning of the Scripture to humans has not remained fixed: it has changed, and in at least some cases (two of the above three examples), by inspiration.

What does this mean? I don't know. I just find it interesting.

Divisive Issues

A writer on an email list recently wrote the following, which makes me go "Hmm-mm."

===

Practices found within the Church of Christ/Sign Out Front sects leading to sectarianism, division and strife.

Instrumental music
Women publicly involved in the assembly.
Rhythmic clapping during songs.
Lifting holy hands
Applause to show approval
Wine in lieu of welch's grape juice
Kitchens in the "church" building
Acceptance of the divorced.
Praise teams
Full time pulpit preachers
Unqualified elders
Unqualified deacons
Unqualified teachers
Sunday School
Number of cups
What age women cease to teach children.
Singing during the Lord's Supper.
The Holy Spirit/the written word/the Spirit being active
Yard sales at the building
Paid staff
Paid song leader
Meeting in homes w/o elder present.
Meeting in "church buildings VS Home assembies
Job description for pulpit preacher
Use of the church's building
Weddings in building with instruments
How to care for orphans
"Sound" teachings
Sound systems ;)
Shaped notes VS no notes
Marriage divorce and remarriage
Re-baptisms
Lord's supper before sermon.
Color of the song leader
Interracial marriage
Bus ministry
Gospel meetings
Guest speakers
Stained glass windows
Steeples
Children's church
Sunday school literature.
Bible translations
Suit and ties
Women wearing pants
Bossy wives of elders
Color of the carpet
Tract rack material
Testimonies
Paint trim color of the building
Appropriate song selection
Dimming lights during Lord's supper
Vacation Bible School
Church owned vehicles
Picture directories
Lawn maintenance
Cross on top of Lord's supper trays

I listed some that I have experienced or read about that has caused strife and a divisive spirit resulting in many cases of followers leaving in anger.

Now why can't we understand that Paul told us to be of ONE MIND and taught "Unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace"?

No wonder we have problems when we "focus on problems" instead of focusing on unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

Profound Realizations

It's sad when you know there's something profound on the edge of your brain but you just can't quite access it, and therefore have no clue what it is.

Eve the Complement

From OneInJesus:

Obviously, God’s calling Eve ‘ezer does not mean that Eve is subordinate to Adam or that women are subordinate to men.

Perhaps our difficulty in interpreting ‘ezer can be better seen by noticing how we use “helper” in English. We speak of “mother’s little helper,” a “plumber’s helper,” being a “good helper.” In current English, “helper” carries the connotation of a subordinate — even a child.

Thus, if I were drowning, I’d call out, “Help!” But I wouldn’t refer to the person who rescued me as my “helper.” My rescuer truly helped me, but calling him “helper” would be too condescending — even belittling.

But these thoughts are utterly foreign to the Hebrew ‘ezer. There is no condescension in the Hebrew word at all, so that “helper” (or “help meet,” as in the King James Version) is truly a clumsy translation. In other verses, ‘ezer is used in the sense of “rescuer” or “liberator.” The word is also used in the sense of “one who fights alongside against a common foe.” “Comrade” or “ally” would come close to the sense in many contexts. Thus, the psalmist sings that God is Israel’s help, not a mere helper — but an ally so powerful that Israel must prevail.

When the United States’ armed forces came to the rescue of Kuwait, we were there to help, but we were not helpers — the U.S. military was an ally, a comrade, and an overwhelming superior to any military capability that Kuwait could have mustered. This is the sense ‘ezer used with respect to God and His relationship to His people.

“Complement” is therefore a proper if not excellent translation.

Doing What Seems Right in Your Own Eyes

Many raised in the church have developed an automatic, Pavlovian response to variants of the phrase:

Every man did what seemed right in his own eyes.

Our automatic response is to associate this concept with evil. And this view is not necessarily inaccurate, but then again, it's not entirely accurate either.

The phrase, or something like it, is found in several places within the Bible, and it means different things in different contexts.

For example, in Deuteronomy 12:8 (HCSB), we read:

You are not to do as we are doing here today; everyone [is doing] whatever seems right in his own eyes.

The context here is that Moses is giving instructions to the Israelites as to how they are to worship YHWH. Currently, everyone is doing their own thing, but he makes it clear that as of that point in time, there are certain prescribed rituals and ways of doing things when Israel worships God.

Proverbs 12:15 (HCSB) says:

A fool's way is right in his own eyes,
but whoever listens to counsel is wise.

Here, the Pavlovian response is justified. The meaning is clear that it is foolish to trust one's own understandings and wants when making choices.

This same warning is echoed in Proverbs 16:2 (HCSB), which says:

All a man's ways seem right in his own eyes,
but YHWH weighs the motives.

Although the warning is echoed here, there's also another message you can see if you read between the lines: People act according to their inner beliefs. In other words, "I wouldn't act this way if I didn't believe it's right for me to do so". (Granted, people often act in opposition to what they believe to be right, but at their very core, they believe what they're doing is "right for them".)

Perhaps the most recognized variant of this phrase comes from Judges 17:6 (ESV):

In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

But this is also the passage that is probably most taken out of context.

This passage is not saying that the people then were living wild and having orgies and stealing from their neighbors and killing strangers for fun, and should not be so applied.

Instead, this passage is giving us the ideal form of human government: control of one's self according to a Godly mindset.

Now, I don't know that the people were fulfilling this ideal; I suspect, humans being the selfish creatures we are, that those people were not living according to a completely-given-over-to-God mindset. But that's the ideal.

Notice that the contrast in this passage is not between ungodly and Godly living: it's between a monarchical governmental system vs an individual-oriented system.

Imagine that in a perfect world everyone was Godly, and lived by the Golden Rule of treating others as you would want to be treated. In such a world, there would be no need for a sheriff, or a Congress, or a standing army, or a President, or a King, or any other of the trappings of "government". The ultimate, and only real, purpose of government is to make sure one person does not mistreat others. From the establishment of property boundaries, to the control of traffic lights, to the oversight of the radio spectrum, the proper role of government is simply to make sure that I don't fudge land from you by moving property markers, to make sure that I don't kill your family by running a red light, to make sure that I don't broadcast my radio station and silence yours with a jamming signal.

This sort of self-rule is easier in a smaller population, but if everyone were to adopt a God-mindset, it would work in any size population.

This is the ideal Kingdom of God. When all the citizens of the Kingdom fully submit to God, then we'll have no more need of man-made governments: we will need no king in Israel, for we will all do what is right in our own God-focused eyes.

Gravity: It Ain't What It Used to Be

Isaac Newton's theory of gravity, believed for centuries to be unassailable, has already had to undergo a couple of major modifications. Now, due to observations in the past decade, it looks like there's a paradigm shift taking place among cosmologists concerning gravity.

As the article at Crev.Info puts it in a quote from the primary source:

“Maybe Newton was indeed wrong”, declares Professor Dr. Pavel Kroupa of Bonn University’s Argelander-Institut für Astronomie (AIfA). “Although his theory does, in fact, describe the everyday effects of gravity on Earth, things we can see and measure, it is conceivable that we have completely failed to comprehend the actual physics underlying the force of gravity”....

and

Or one must assume that some basic fundamental principles of physics have hitherto been incorrectly understood. “The only solution would be to reject Newton’s classical theory of gravitation”, says Pavel Kroupa.

This would wreak havoc on current cosmological models and concepts such as dark matter, dark energy, and the Big Bang theory.

What's amazing is that the High Priests of Science have been telling us for years that they have all the answers, and that some "facts of science" are beyond question. Kind of puts a big question mark on other "scientific claims", such as the claim that “evolution is a fact, like gravity,” doesn't it?

Inherited Sin

On the Church_Of_Christ Yahoo!Group, George K. Howsepian wrote:

George: Was Adam born totally corrupt? Was Jesus?

It might be pointed out that Adam was not born. Nor was he created with corruption within him. That corruption, as I understand things, came as a result of his disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit.

Concerning Jesus, it's well to remember that he only inherited the human cell and his mother's half of his genetic material; the father's half (presumably) came directly from God.

My own personal thoughts is that the term "sin" is used in two ways in the Bible (but only directly "defined" in one of those ways, as "lawlessness - 1 John 3:4):

1) Breaking the law: an action or inaction causing guilt. This is the definition we've all grown up with. It's a "missing of the mark" in that we haven't met the specified requirements.

2) A flaw: an imperfection. We typically do not consider this as "sin", yet, it too is a "missing of the mark", a sub-par manifestation of the designed Ideal. Paul uses the term this way in Romans 7, when he talks about sin dwelling in him, in the very members of his body.

The first type of sin is not inheritable. Each person shall bear his own guilt, and shall not inherit the guilt of his ancestors.

The second type of sin is inheritable, and we've all inherited this sin from Adam. Thus, even babies who are innocent of the first type of sin, sometimes die, because they are subject to the second type of sin.

Jesus, however, did not inherit whatever part of the cellular machinery the rest of us humans inherit from our human fathers. My guess is that this has significance in relation to the inheritance of the second type of sin. My guess is that Jesus did not inherit the second type of sin, and I know he did not commit the first type of sin. Jesus was sinless.

The rest of us humans, however, are not sinless. We are sinless in the first sense at birth, but not in the second sense.

Thus, to claim that we are "totally depraved" is to go beyond the evidence, I believe. We are not totally depraved; yet we are flawed, and that flaw eventually leads to depravity for those of us who reach the "age of accountability".

I would hesitate even to define this second sense of sin as "sin", except that it seems to me to best fit the context of Romans 7 and Romans 3:23.

Skins for Adam and Eve

On the Church_Of_Christ Yahoo! Group, 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} [errors in original].

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 a 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.

Crashing Into God

I saw the movie "Crash" tonight. I have to say, I was more impressed than I expected. As I watched the film, two thoughts came to the forefront of my consciousness:

1) Love your neighbor. The movie dealt with relationships (and yet, it wasn't really a chic-flick; imagine that!), and whether taking a gun in hand to avenge a wrong, or reacting in anger at a scared, hurting person who rages at you unjustly, or simply being in your own little shell oblivious of real people around you, the answer to the sickness of these types of relationships was the foundational proclamation by Yahshua, who said that the two most important life-rules for living are to love YHWH with all your being, and to love your neighbor as much as you love yourself. If we all made this second rule of loving others (i.e. "the Golden Rule" - "Do unto others as you would have them do to you") the starting base of our lives, and constantly strove to live our lives by this rule, our lives and our world would be healthier than they are.

2) Do the right thing. The movie also had some subplots in which certain right/wrong decisions had to be made: "Do I frame the innocent guy to 'pay' for the guilt of my family member, or do I do the right thing?" The answer should always be, "Do the right thing, even if it costs you dearly."

A third thought came to mind later: You may not be who you think you are. In the movie, one person who was the bad guy turned out to be the good guy, and one who was the good guy turned out to be the bad guy. (Actually, this happened with several characters.) And the solution to this problem is to refer to Thought #2 above - "Do the right thing, even if it costs you dearly."

A friend pointed out a fourth thought, which I deem important: Don't judge people without knowing them. You've heard it since Grade School in the phrase, "Don't judge a book by its cover".

The evening was capped by a message from God as I did my nightly Bible reading. In Luke 12, Yahshua condemned hypocrisy. In the same breath he pointed out that, "[t]here is nothing covered that won't be uncovered, nothing hidden that won't be made known. Therefore whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in an ear in private rooms will be proclaimed on the housetops' (Luke 12:2-3). In other words, if you're sneaking around with your best friend's husband, or you're hiding your stash of porn mags, or you're secretly drinking or doing drugs, or you're slyly stealing from the cash register, you may think you're doing these things in the dark, but you're not. One day, in a grand courtroom, the bailiff will stand before all your friends and family and spouse and kids and enemies and announce to the world that you did X, Y, and Z in private. You may think you're hiding it, but you're not. I think it would be best if we learned to live our lives in such a way that we won't be ashamed of our private lives when we're in the Defendant's Seat. Don't be a hypocrite: be in private the person you pretend to be in public.

Luke 12 also has some other good nuggets:

* God knows every detail about you, even the number of hairs on your head. You may think He's not paying attention, that He's ignoring you (after all, He hasn't answered your prayer, has He?), but He's not. He knows everything about you (including those things you do in private, which are being recorded for announcing to the public later) (Luke 12:7).

* Store up treasure for God, not for yourself. Don't spend your resources on yourself. (Luke 12:16-21)

* Don't focus on supporting your lifestyle: instead, "Seek His Kingdom .... Sell your possessions and give to the poor" (Luke 12:31,33).

* The sinner who knows better will be punished more severely than the sinner who is merely ignorant (Luke 12:47-48).

This evening has been educational, and encourages me to take these lessons to heart.

Let's Go Fishin'

A friend showed me a Bible study in which he's currently involved, and I noticed the phrase "fisher of men". This is found in Mark 1:14-17:

14Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, 15and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." 16As He was going along by the Sea of Galilee, He saw Simon and Andrew, the brother of Simon, casting a net in the sea; for they were fishermen. 17And Jesus said to them, "Follow Me, and I will make you become fishers of men."

We, not knowing our Tanakh's ("Old Testaments") very well, think that this turn of phrase was a merely a pun played by Jesus as he called these two fishermen to be his disciples.

But those fishermen were very familiar with their Tanakh, and recognized both the pun and the reference Jesus was making.

Hundreds of years earlier, Jeremiah (chapter 16) had prophesied that because the Israelites were not true to YHWH, YHWH would hurl them away from their own country and into another place, and take away their joy and rejoicing and replace it with famine and war and death and disease. But then Jeremiah continues on to say that after a period of punishment, YHWH will gather the scattered back to their home. And in this context he says:

16"Behold, I am going to send for many fishermen," declares YHWH, "and they will fish for them; and afterwards I will send for many hunters, and they will hunt them from every mountain and every hill and from the clefts of the rocks.

Jesus, as he passes by the fishermen, Peter and Andrew, is essentially telling them, "It's time to bring Israel back to God; you men are going to be the fishermen who do so."

Jesus may also be making a reference to a prophecy in Amos 4:

1Hear this word, you cows of Bashan who are on the mountain of Samaria,
Who oppress the poor, who crush the needy,
Who say to your husbands, "Bring now, that we may drink!"
2The Lord YHWH has sworn by His holiness,
"Behold, the days are coming upon you
When they will take you away with meat hooks,
And the last of you with fish hooks.

Mark, in his rendition of the story of Jesus, seems to tie this phrase with the imprisonment of John. John had been oppressed and crushed by the elite in Judea who sit around and sip champagne; Jesus is calling these lowly fishers to be the men who use fish hooks to drag such oppressors away.

(Thanks to Brent for the inspiration for this entry.)

Life is About People

I was at the bathroom sink the other day, washing my hands, when a forceful sense of thought came into my head:

Life is about people.

And I realized that really, life is not about doing your job, whatever it is; it's not about making art, or music, or finding a cure for cancer, or running a farm and producing food for millions, or repairing cars, or writing blogs.

It's about people.

And I realized that two years ago, I pretty much just wanted to be self-contained, and/or with a few close friends/family maybe. Over the past two years, I've realized that's a selfish position, and I've tried to be a bit more outgoing and aware of other people. I'm not at all good at it; don't really like it; but I'm trying to be more people-oriented.

Then this "revelation" the other day just hit me that this is the important thing.

It's an echo of what Yahshua said when he was asked what was the most important commandment in life. He answered:

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind, and your neighbor as yourself. - Luke 10.27

John also hits this point, saying:

For the person who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. - 1 John 4.20

And the New Testament is full of admonitions to think about the other person, to do good for others, to be focused on the needs of others.

Others others others.

As mentioned, I'm not good at this. I don't really like people as a rule. But I'm learning that I need to change my ways, and become people-oriented. I'm not really changing my life yet, but if I can get my mind to change (which is what the word "repent" means), then my life will align with my thinking.

Life is about people. It's not about me.

Wow. Hard lessons.

Dancing with a Mop

So a friend texted me the other day; he had just bought a new sponge-mop, and while using it for the first time, the head came loose.

I texted back the following:

Oh, you probably got the dance-teaching mop instead of the floor-cleaning mop. As you gyrate around the kitchen trying to catch the mophead you're learning to do the Spongemop Square-Dance.

I'm pretty proud of my wit at the moment ... :-)

Please Stop Mis-Using 1 Cor 16:1-2 as a Proof Text

This is all I have to say.

The Franchise Agreement

But word got out. Word always gets out. A retired elder grabbed me in the hall. He said he’d heard about our discussion. He had a look of sheer panic on his face.

“You know you can’t do that,” he said with the greatest of urgency.

“You mean politically? There’s nothing in the Bible on it, of course, and the church will support the decision, I’m sure,” I replied — naively as it now seems looking back on this fateful conversation.

“No, no,” he shook his head. “You forgot about the franchise agreement! How could you forget about the franchise??”

I assured him that I had no idea what he was talking about, and I thought sure he’d lost his mind. He was, after all, quite elderly.

It must have shown on my face, because he looked me straight in the eyes and said, “I’m not crazy!” He looked deeply embarassed. “When I retired, I guess I forgot to give a copy to the next guy. You see, in churches of Christ, the senior elder always keeps a copy of the secret franchise agreement. It has all the rules that you think ought to be in the Bible but aren’t.”

A few days later he drove to my house and handed me an ancient, dusty document, plainly labeled “Franchise Agreement.” And as old as it was, the lettering remained very clear.

The retired elder leaned close and whispered in my ear. “Now it will all make sense. All the gaps, and silences, and peculiarities — now you’ll understand.”

If you grew up in the Church of Christ, I suggest you go read The Franchise Agreement. Then it'll all make sense.

A Look at the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor 11

Norman, on the Church_Of_Christ Yahoo!Group, says (typos and grammar-o's are his):

Then, how can we duplicate it EXACTLY? (It is clear what was going on in Acts 2 and 20?) Certainly the LS [Lord's Supper] was involved. (At least, they claimed to be meeting for the LS) But also an abuse that involved "factions" (Yes, we learn later there was partially) v 19; some eating before others arrived, (they did not understand the LS) v 21, some even getting drunk, (On an 8 ounce bottle of Welch's grape juice? Why would they have gallons of alcoholic beverage if they only came for a 5-part worship to take the LS as we take it today?) v21. Whether this involved another meal or not and whether, if it did involve another meal, it was a Love Feast, is simply untold. (It was NOT the LS only.) In this discussion, it is not important, because the discussion is whether I MUST do exactly as they did and why or why not? My point is that we must know exactly what they did and we agree that we do not know. Therefore, we need to look at other scriptures to determent if they are facts or traditions. Acts 2: 42, 46 and Acts 20:7. The scripture is not followed in these verses (when we come together to worship), traditional beliefs dictates what we teach as scripture.

...

It may appear that it was the LS supper turned into a meal; however, we cannot know for sure, can we? Isn't it true that we do not know EXACTLY how and why they met? If you will look at Paul's explanation of the proper method to take the LS; you see that his illustration was with a meal and AFTER the meal the LS was taken.

(1 Cor 11:25-26 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

To say is was the LS being tuned into a common meal come from outside sources, not scripture. Paul established this church and had already taught them how to take the Lord's Supper. He spent 1 1/2 years with them , and a good while . He had taken the Lord's Supper with them many times; probably about 150 times if they took it every Sunday and only on Sunday as you claim. He showed them how to take it. I am quite sure he did not show them how to remain silent while trays were past with a piece of cracker in one tray and follower by another tray with tiny cup of Welch's grape juice for 150 times and they decided later to have a common meal with alcoholic beverages and call it the LS. They didn't understand or they had forgotten the importance of it.

If you will remember Paul said one remains hungry, or do you despise the church of God and HUMILATE those who have NOTHING (to eat)? Their intentions were to have a love feast and feed the poor. Paul did not condemn them for eating a common meal with the LS. He only said if you can't wait until the poor Christians get there eat at home. The only problem was they were despising the church of God and humiliating those who had nothing?

Is the Church of Christ a Denomination?

(The following was written to a "Church of Christ" mailing list, from a typical "Church of Christ" mentality.)

====

To me, a "denomination" is a part of the whole. Full stop. It doesn't have to recognize itself as such. Nor does it have to be organized above the congregational level and have a statement of faith. These things are often true of denominations.

Using this simple definition, let me show you how I've concluded that the Church of Christ (big "C", Sign-Out-Front) is a denomination.

Imagine a young man in the dark jungles of interior Africa. He's never seen a white man, has no idea of modern civilization, has never heard a radio or seen a TV.

All his life, every Thursday evening, the tribe gathers around for a worship meal. They sacrifice a small animal, and roast it, and each community member eats a small piece of it in a ritual. They interpret this ritual as a means of gaining the characteristics of the animal (if it was a rabbit, they gain speed and agility; if a wolf, strength and cooperation; if a snake, ghost-like movements; etc). They also place a drop of blood from the animal into a common water container, and then all drink a small sip from the water. In this manner, they become one with the spirits of the world. After the meeting, they sing and dance around the fire, in honor of all the gods of the earth, and especially in honor of the Great God above all the other gods.

One day, this young man is out hunting, and he comes across the dead body of a white missionary. He's never seen a white man, but he remembers stories from his youth of God-men coming to Earth as messengers, to deliver knowledge to humans. He recalls that in the stories, these God-men had bodies that glowed white with light. He concludes this dead missionary must be one such messenger. Searching the body reverently, he finds a small book, amazingly enough, written in the language of a neighboring tribe, which this young man understands. He takes the book, and begins to read.

From the book, he learns that the Great God created all of the heaven and earth, and all the animals, and even the first ancestral humans from whom all humanity is descended. He learns other history, and even recognizes the story of Noah and the Ark as being very similar to the story of his own people, and realizes that the stories refer to the same event, only his story must have become corrupt over the generations (after all, it would be presumed that the "God-Man" would have the correct version of the story as part of his message to humans).

He continues reading, and realizes that much of his beliefs, while floundering near and about the one true God, missed it in so very many ways.

He learns that God sent a very special God-Man to Earth, one that was in essence the Great God Himself, in human form. The young man doesn't understand all the nitty-gritty details, but he does comprehend a basic understanding that this Jesus is the Son of the Great God, and that like the animals they sacrifice every Thursday evening, Jesus was sacrificed, but his sacrifice does so much more, in that it opens a renewed relationship between humans and the Great God.

Further study reveals that if the young man accepts this fact, and believes and confesses to it, and changes his mind to start worshiping the Great God and his Son as found in this book, rather than worshiping according to his life-long understandings, and if he's immersed in water for a cleansing and a renewal, he will emerge from the water as a new person, saved before the Great God of the book.

He does so.

My question: Is this young man now a Christian?

I'm going to assume you'll say "yes", even though this young man still has a very incomplete understanding of the ways of Christianity.

Now, come Thursday evening, this young man joins his community for worship, but now, instead of worshiping the gods of the Earth, all his activities are oriented toward giving worth to the Great God of the book, and His son, the God-Man Jesus. The young man still participates in the sacrifice, and the eating of the roasted meat, and the drinking of the blood-tainted water, and the dancing and singing around the fire, but he does so giving worth to the real God, not toward the gods he formerly worshiped.

My next question: Is this young man still a Christian?

Yes, he's worshiping incorrectly, out of ignorance; that's plain. But does that "un-make" him a Christian?

It seems to me that he's a Christian, a member of the church of Christ, the church we read about in the New Testament. He doesn't LOOK to us like a member of the church of Christ, but if I understand the conversion process, he is indeed a member of the same church of which I attend every Sunday and Wednesday. Hopefully, as he continues studying, he'll learn more and more of the Biblical way of worshiping.

Now, one last question: What if instead of being in the dark jungles of Africa, this young man was raised in the Baptist church? At some point in his young adult years, he decides to read the Bible, realizes that what he's been taught all his life is not Biblical, decides to be immersed in water to have his sins washed away and to become a Christian, and asks his Pastor do immerse him. The pastor says he'll immerse him, but not for the forgiveness of sins; the young man replies, "Just immerse me; your reasons don't matter; mine do." So the young man is immersed. Is he now a Christian, a member of the church of Christ? If so, if in his ignorance he still attends the Baptist assembly the next Sunday morning, and still worships in form as the Baptists do, does that "un-make" him as a Christian?

Now perhaps you haven't come with me to the same conclusions I have drawn, but if you have, then it must be asked, "Is it possible, at least theoretically, for a Christian to be 'hidden' in some non-Church of Christ denomination?" If so, then the "church of Christ" is larger than the "Church of Christ"; thus, the "Church of Christ" is a part of the whole, thereby making it, by definition, a denomination.

All Christians everywhere, in the dark jungles of Africa, or in the confused trappings of a Baptist assembly, are members of the church of Christ, even if they are not members of the "Church of Christ".

Of course, you may put more requirements on becoming a Christian than I have laid out here. Perhaps you insist that a true convert have proper understanding that he can't wear any non-Biblical name (such as "Episcopalian" or "Methodist"), or that he have a proper understanding of acceptable worship forms (no women speaking in church; the "Five Acts", etc), or that he have a proper understanding of church organization (multiple pastors, multiple deacons, congregational autonomy, etc). If that's the case, then you essentially require a person to convert to a system rather than to a person.

Maybe I've just wasted a bunch of bandwidth with these what-if scenarios, but hopefully they help demonstrate how it is that although I believe the Biblical church of Christ, as found in the New Testament, is not a denomination, the group we generally consider as the "Church of Christ" is, at least theoretically.

If there are any Christians hidden in denominations, we need to call them out, to be "just Christians"; not "Baptist Christians" or "Assembly of God Christians" or even "Church of Christ Christians". We need to drop the descriptive and divisive names; christians who meet in a building with a Church of Christ sign-out-front should alternate their signs every week with other Biblical descriptions; there's nothing wrong with the term "church of Christ" when it's on an equal level with other equally Biblical terms for the church, but when it becomes the "official" term by which our group is distinguished, we have, in
essence, become a denomination.

Lots of words; probably very little value; my apologies for being so long-winded. Hopefully it'll convey the meaning I intended.

Change Agents

According to an article at Time.com, matzo (crackers to us Gentiles) had been prepared by hand for thousands of years according to strict regulations. In the 19th century the process was mechanized, and for decades the Jewish community was split over the acceptability of such a process. As the article puts it:

But changes to 3,000-year-old religious traditions never go smoothly, and Singer's invention became a hot-button issue for 19th century Jewish authorities. In 1959, a well-known Ukrainian rabbi named Solomon Kluger published an angry manifesto against machine-made matzo, while his brother-in-law, Rabbi Joseph Saul Nathanson, published a defense. Jewish communities around the world weighed in on the issue — arguing that handmade matzo provided kneading jobs for the poor; that the machine made matzo cheap enough that poor people could afford it; that the mitzvah, or good deed, of eating matzo was ruined if a machine was used; that the machine made it easier to abide by the 18-minute rule. These discussions were not resolved quickly — and in some Orthodox communities, not at all.

I think that much of the present controversy over "change agents" in the church may be of a similar nature. Granted, some changes are indeed actual changes to Biblical practices, and should be shunned. But I suspect many are simply changes to traditions. Are we defending Biblical practices, or are we defending human traditions, or are we simply resistant to change? (And go watch the Matzah video - http://www.matzahsong.com/ - it's fun!)

More Archealogical Evidence of Israelite Beginnings

From Israel21c:

Researchers from the University of Haifa today revealed an exceptional archaeological discovery of "foot-shaped" enclosures for assemblies and rituals in the Jordan Valley, dating back to the time when the Jews first settled Israel.

The article goes on to say that these foot-shaped enclosures appear to have marked territory as belonging to the various tribes of Israel, and that this discovery sheds light on the meaning of various terms and on the beginnings of Israel and her holy days.

As I was reading the article, it came to mind that God told Abram:

Get up and walk from one end of the land to the other, for I will give it to you.

(Gen 13:17)

and that when Boaz bought property from another, shoes were exchanged, with this explanation given:

⁷ At an earlier period in Israel, a man removed his sandal and gave [it] to the other party in order to make any matter [legally] binding concerning the right of redemption or the exchange of property. This was [the method of] legally binding a transaction in Israel.

⁸ So the redeemer removed his sandal and said to Boaz, "Buy back [the property] yourself."

(Ruth 4:7-8)

Apparently there was quite a symbolism in the ancient Jewish cultures concerning feet/shoes and property ownership. There may even be some related significance to the New Testament practice of shaking off from the foot the dust of a town that does not accept the message of Jesus, as if Jesus is saying, "You won't have me? I won't own you."

Eazy-Peazy

Once the co-workers learned I had put one of my songs on YouTube, they clamored for me to publish Easy-Peazy also.

She Didn't Write Me On My Birthday

Okay, I'm no musical genius; my skill is lacking. Still, I enjoy tinkering on the guitar, and having recently created an account on YouTube, decided to put it to use.

Awareness Test

I highly recommend you watch this 1-minute video. It has a lesson to teach us about life in general, and which I believe should particularly be applied to Biblical interpretation and to the interpretation of evidences of all sorts (particularly thinking of Creation/Evolution issues):

Awareness Test

Working out the Gospel in the First Century

Kevin Parker, in a potent discourse on politics (Facebook account possibly required), wrote this:

The Gospel itself is a part of culture, yet it transcends all human cultures. There is a danger in assuming that our brand of Christianity is the exact and perfectly restored pure 100% Grade A gospel as put forth by the disciples and Church fathers. Face it, folks, those early leaders didn't even agree 100% among themselves, and much of the New Testament witness is a working out of the Gospel amidst various cultural shortcomings and biased perceptions.

A Fresh Resurrection Gives Renewed Meaning to the Lord's Supper

Brian Bergman writes in the "Church_of_Christ" Yahoo! Group concerning Acts 20, in which Paul and his companions stay in Troas seven days, and then meet with the church on the first day of the week:

I have seen some very smart people write about this passage in Acts recently and they basically say that we need to look at why Luke might have included this particular incident in his account. As the argument goes, Luke was very concerned about tying together the victorious nature of resurrection with the Lord's Supper. In this particular instance, Luke saw the most powerful example of the church eating the Lord's supper because they were doing so in the presence of Eutychus who they had just seen risen from the dead, reinforcing their hope in their own resurrection some day.

If you accept this argument, Acts 20:7 suddenly has a great deal of theological meaning for the purpose of our communion together rather than being a proof text for the meeting time of the church.

Three Days and Three Nights in the Grave

On a public forum was asked this question:

In Matt 12:40 Jesus said, he will be dead for 3 days and 3 nights, like Jonah was in the whale's belly. So if he resurrected on Sat(Sabbath) night, then he would have died on Wednesday evening.

But in John 19:30-42 it is stating as, he died on a Friday, being the day of preparation before the Sabbath. Luke 23:54, Mark 15:42 and Matt 27:62 stating the same.

That doesn't come to 3 days and 3 nights. Please enlighten.

I believe the best explanation is to realize that the Passover begins and ends with a Sabbath, even if that starting and ending date do not fall on the seventh day of the week.

During the week of the crucifixion, the Sabbath referred to, following the day of preparation, was a "high Sabbath" (John 19:31). I like the way the Holman Christian Standard Bible renders this verse:

Since it was the preparation day, the Jews did not want the bodies to remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a special day)....

In other words, this was not an ordinary seventh-day-of-the-week Sabbath, but it was the Sabbath that began Passover. That week had two Sabbaths, one beginning Wednesday night at sundown, and a regular Sabbath beginning on Friday evening at sundown.

Dying on Wednesday at 3pm (when the shofar was blown and the daily sacrifice was offered in the Temple, by the way), Jesus was in the heart of the earth by dark that night. He was in the ground Wednesday night, Thursday night, and Friday night (three nights) and Thursday day, Friday day, and Saturday day (three days), raising after the Sabbaths ended, on the first day of the week, after dark on Saturday. Within hours, while it was still dark, the Mary's came and found the tomb empty.

Milburn Cockrell does a good job explaining it here.

Uzzah's Sin

The following was written by Ed (heb12347 on the gmail.com email system) on the Church_of_Christ Yahoo! Group.

I remember the first time I heard about Uzzah, I sorta felt sorry for him. After all, all he did was try to steady the Ark of the Covenant and keep it from smashing into a thousand pieces, it seemed to me. David was bringing the Ark to Jerusalem on a new cart pulled by oxen. It was a big affair with over 30,000 escorts and music. All of a sudden the oxen stumbled, the Ark teetered, and Uzzah reached out to steady it. God struck him dead! The story is recorded in 2 Samuel 6.

As I learned more, I came to understand what was going on and I no longer feel sorry for Uzzah. Familiarity breeds contempt and Uzzah had grown up with the Ark kept in his house. He knew all about the ark, including that it was to be moved by the Kohathites carrying it (Numbers 4:15) and that no one was to touch it (Num 4:15). He had heard stories about the men of Bethshemesh (1 Sam 6:19); how 70 had died as a result of looking into the Ark. He knew better than to treat something sacred as if it was common! We should know this same lesson - Heb 12:28! Reverence should characterize every disciple!

But there is more to this than Uzzah's irreverence. David learned a lesson as well. David left the ark where Uzzah was struck dead to study what went wrong.

Apparently David didn't know the Ark was to be carried by Kohathites. Uzzah didn't tell him. So in 1 Chronicles 15:1 David announces, "No one but the Levites may carry the Ark because the Lord chose them." In verse 13 David explained why things went wrong the first time and Uzzah died: "We did not inquire of the Lord about how to do it in the prescribed way." So when they went on to Jerusalem Levites carried the Ark "in accordance with the word of the Lord".

When it comes to doing the things of God, we need to inquire of the Lord that we might do it the right way! Jesus teaches us that "the true worshipers of God worship Him in spirit and truth for the Lord seeks such to worship Him." We are not free to do as we please. The Lord seeks "such" people who will look to Him to find what pleases Him and not go beyond it. Those who choose to act as if they are free to do as they please are very much like Uzzah. He knowingly substituted a cart and oxen when it would have been just as easy to do God's prescribed will. May we learn to act reverently before the Lord.

 

I Can Be Good!

A couple or three years ago I had something happen in my life which made me realize that my self-concept was wrong. All my life I had been a good kid, and I perceived myself as basically Godly, with just occasional lapses into sin.

Then this event happened, and I became aware that deep in the darkest parts of my being was a dark spot, full of sin and evil. I had no idea I had evil living within my body, but there it was. It was crushing.

Over the next few days/weeks, I learned to deal with it; I realized that the apostle Paul spoke of the same darkness within him (Romans 7). And I concluded that I must approach it the same way he did: hating the fact that sin was within me, but rejoicing in the fact that Yahshua would one day free me from that sin.

Last night I was reading Matthew 12, when I came across this passage:

Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for a tree is known by its fruit. Brood of vipers! How can you speak good things when you are evil? For the mouth speaks from the overflow of the heart. A good man produces good things from his storeroom of good, and an evil man produces evil things from his storeroom of evil. I tell you that on the day of judgment people will have to account for every careless word they speak. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.

And it struck me: I may have a darkness deep in my soul (which I was unaware of most of my life), but it doesn't matter what I have in me; what matters is what comes out of me. What matters is from which storeroom I pull produce. What matters is which room produces the overflow.

When I realized that, it was like a fresh wave of peace washing over me. It gave me confidence to realize that every person has two storerooms; the existence of a storeroom of evil does not make the person evil; the harvesting of that storeroom is what makes a person evil.

By the grace of God, I want to harvest from my storeroom of good! Sure, I'm not perfect; I have sin deep within the corpuscles of my body. But what I am, is not what I have within me; it's what I produce from what I have within me.

I want to be a good man. And by the grace of God, I can be. Not "good" as in "only God is Good" good, but you understand what I'm saying.

It was very nice to realize this.

I'm sure it doesn't mean that much to you, the reader; you probably don't fully comprehend it; but it means something to me. And I bless God for the gift He gave me last night through his Spirit's enlightening of my understanding of His word.

Something Greater is Here

In reading Matthew 11 - 13, I noticed a recurring phrase that caught my eye.

When speaking approvingly of John the Immerser, Jesus said in 11:11:

Among those born of women no one greater than John the Baptist has appeared, but the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Later, in 12:6, when Jesus is challenged by the Pharisees, part of his response to them included this:

But I tell you that something greater than the temple is here!

Later, in 12:42, when again challenged by the Pharisees, Jesus responded:

... something greater than Solomon is here!

Better a Christian than a King

In reading Matthew 11:11, Jesus said:

Among those born of women no one greater than John the Baptist has appeared, but the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

I took this to mean that presidents and kings of the world, mere humans, born of women, have less clout than the lowliest Christian, who are born of the Spirit.

Fly Under the Radar

Jesus clearly taught then when doing right, it's okay to avoid the enemy by flying "under the radar". I noticed this recently when reading Matthew 10, in which Jesus sends out his disciples to preach the Kingdom to the nation of Israel.

Look, I'm sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as serpents and as harmless as doves. Because people will hand you over to sanhedrins and flog you in their synagogues, beware of them. You will even be brought before governors and kings because of Me, to bear witness to them and to the nations. But when they hand you over, don't worry about how or what you should speak. For you will be given what to say at that hour, because you are not speaking, but the Spirit of your Father is speaking through you. Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will even rise up against their parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by everyone because of My name. But the one who endures to the end will be delivered. When they persecute you in one town, escape to another.

So stand up for what's right, but don't hesitate to give the enemy "the slip" whenever possible, or to run away.

Puns and Wordplay in the Bible

Well, I finally broke down and YouTube'd myself. It's the 6-minute presentation I made at church this past Wednesday night on puns and wordplay in the Bible.

Earliest Octopi Were Fully-Formed

I'd just like to point out something from an article highlighted on Slashdot.

The article says that five new 95-million year old fossils, representing three new species of octopuses, have been found. (I don't buy the 95 million year old number, but, meh.) The article says:

What is truly astonishing to the scientists is how similar these ancient creatures are to their modern-day counterparts. Dirk Fuchs, lead author on the study stated, "These things are 95 million years old, yet one of the fossils is almost indistinguishable from living species."

In other words, the very first time that an octopus shows up in the fossil record, it is a fully-formed octopus, and has remained virtually unchanged since it first appeared. This is consistent with a literal creationist interpretation of history, and is inconsistent with a gradual evolutionary interpretation.

If you pay attention, you'll likely discover that more and more fossils (coelecanth, ginkgo plant, opossums, etc) are showing up fully-formed earlier and earlier in the fossil record, and then persisting virtually unchanged throughout their lifespans.

Hmmm.

Denominationalism in the First-Century Church

Over the past couple of weeks I've been in an online discussion about first-century denominations. All my life I've been assured, and persuaded, that there were no denominations in the first century church; 1 Cor. 1:10ff was the proof-text that denominationalism was wrong.

But when the text is approached with an open mind and common sense, one may come to a different conclusion. In the past few weeks, I have come to that different conclusion.

As part of the discussion, the term "denomination" was defined in various ways:

1. a sub-group within a larger group.

2. having distinctive names.

3. having a distinctive name, distinctive doctrine, and separating from others of similar faith.

There were some other definitions also, including textbook dictionary definitions.

But after all has been said and done, it seems to me that what we would refer to as a "denomination" in the 21st century is what we can see in the first-century church. The result is that I now understand that there were at least two "denominations" within the first-century church (both of which I've discussed previously):

- the Torah-keepers; denominated by the names "Jews [who have believed]" (Acts 21:20), "circumcised" (Rom. 3:30), "the circumcision" (Gal. 2:12)

- the non-Torah-keepers; denominated by the names "Gentiles [who have believed]" (Acts 21:25), "uncircumcised" (Rom. 3:30), "Gentiles" (Gal. 2:20).

But it's not their distinctive names that denominate them so much as it is their distinctive doctrines. The first group was saying, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom prescribed by Moses, you cannot be saved!" (Acts 15:1). And this first group was separating themselves off from the second group (Gal. 2:12), a practice condemned by Paul.

It was this issue which spurred the Jerusalem Conference, discussed in Acts 15. The result was that the Holy Spirit itself revealed that there was no problem with having two groups, going by two different names, having two different doctrines concerning salvation; the problem was when one group insisted that the other group do things the same way as the first group, and/or when one group ceased fellowshiping with the other group.

In other words, the Holy Spirit gave approval to "denominationalism" within the first-century church, but within limits.

On a related note, the Internet discussion morphed from there into the topic of names for the church, and the general consensus seems to be that most of us have concluded that there is no such thing as a Biblical name for the church; there are only descriptions. And when we elevate one "name" over another as THE name of the church, we have gone beyond what is written, and have contributed to the denominationalism so many of us have railed against all our lives.

It's been a very challenging discussion. And hard. It's hard to challenge your life-long-held beliefs.

Zechariah 7 & 8

Zechariah 7:

YHWH of Hosts says this: "Render true justice. Show faithful love and compassion to one another. ¹⁰ Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the stranger or the poor, and do not plot evil in your hearts against one another."

Zechariah 8:

"These are the things you must do: Speak truth to one another; render honest and peaceful judgments in your gates. ¹⁷ Do not plot evil in your hearts against your neighbor, and do not love perjury, for I hate all this"— YHWH's declaration.

More on Biblical Covenants

A woman writes:

Also I look at a covenant like a will. If someone had written six wills only the last will would be valid because that last will canceled out all 5 of those previous wills. Is this wrong thinking when looking at the different covenants? I would like your view.

If a covenant is designed to replace an earlier covenant, this woman is correct. This is the case with wills, as is the case with the "old covenant" vs the "new covenant". (The "old covenant" is defined in Jeremiah 31 as the Mosaic Law, given at Mt. Sinai, but has nothing to do with earlier covenants, such as the Noahic covenant, and/or later, different covenants, such as the one God made with David to keep a descendant of David's on the throne forever - Jeremiah 33:20-22 - a covenant fulfilled in Jesus, a descendant of David.)

But just because you enter into a new covenant, that does not necessarily mean any previous covenants you had become null. For example, if you get a new credit card and run up a balance, you now have a new covenant to pay that bill; this does not in any way nullify other credit card balances you had previously; you are still bound by those earlier covenants.

God made a covenant with all of humanity in the Adamic covenant (be fruitful; multiply; steward the earth; live a vegetarian lifestyle; etc).

He made another covenant with all of humanity in the Edenic covenant. The new conditions of the Edenic covenant (toil; labor; pain in childbirth; death; a promised messiah) did not nullify the conditions of the Adamic covenant (be fruitful; multiply; steward the earth; etc).

He made another covenant with all the earth and all the animals and with all of humanity in the Noahic covenant (no more global flooding; seasons; rainbows; capital punishment for murderers; skittishness of humans in animals; etc). This covenant did not nullify the conditions of the earlier two covenants: humanity was still to multiply and take care of the earth, and was still subject to hard work and pain and death, and still had the right to look forward to a messiah. Note however that this new covenant did include one condition that was the same as in a previous covenant: "be fruitful and multiply". It also gave a new permission which over-rides one of the stipulations of an earlier covenant: we now could eat meat. This might be analogous to a house-owner entering into a contract with you to rent to you a house with a stipulation that you could only paint the house green, and then sometime later writing up a new contract with you for renting to you a car also, and which also has a clause within it giving you the right to paint your house red in addition to the green of the first contract.

He made another covenant with Abram, and this covenant is actually referred to in Gal 3:8 as "the gospel". This covenant was originally only for Abram's descendants (a subset of humanity), but hinted at including all of humanity somewhere down the road. Paul finishes up Galatians chapter 3 by claiming that all Christians, even if they're not physical descendants of Abram, are spiritual descendants of him, and have thus inherited this covenant. This covenant did not nullify the conditions of the earlier covenants: humanity was still to multiply and take care of the earth, and was still subject to hard work and pain and death, and still had the right to look forward to a messiah, and still enjoyed freedom from global floods, and still was comforted by the rainbow's promise, and still had a hard time catching animals because of their instinctual skittishness of humans.

Then he made a covenant only with the Israelites (a subset of Abram's descendants), not with all of humanity, which we refer to as the Law of Moses. It is this covenant, and only this covenant, which Jeremiah 31 says God will replace with a new covenant. This covenant did not nullify the conditions of earlier covenants: Paul says this expressly in Gal. 3:17 - "And I say this: the law, which came 430 years later, does not revoke a covenant that was previously ratified by God, so as to cancel the promise."

Then he made a covenant with King David (a subset of the Israelites), that there would always be a descendant of David on the throne. This covenant is still in effect, with the role of throne-sitter being held by Jesus. This covenant did not nullify the conditions of any of the earlier covenants.

Then he made a new covenant with all of humanity, with Jesus as the mediator. This covenant did not nullify most of the earlier covenants, but it did nullify one: the Mosaic Covenant, the one which had been expressly singled out by Jeremiah as being earmarked for replacement. But notice that even at that, it's not so much a replacement as a spiritualizing: rather than the law being written down in regulations on a stone tablet, it's written down in family relationships in our hearts.

Just like a teenager might need a written rule to mow the lawn every week, a grown adult will take it upon himself to make sure his older parents' lawn gets mown, because that "rule" is now in his heart, not on the fridge-side "to do" list.

So hopefully you can see that some covenants do replace earlier covenants, such as wills, whereas some covenants do not replace earlier covenants.

Evil Shepherds vs the Great Shepherd

(Thanks to Ray Vander Laan for the essence of the following material)

In Yahshua's day, Jericho was a city of priests, the home of many Sadducees. These Sadducee priests had to remain ceremonially clean for their Temple duties; they had many restrictions to prevent becoming unclean, such as being forbidden from touching a dead (or nearly-dead) body (which explains the priest's behavior in the parable of the Good Samaritan), and being forbidden from touching Roman money since it had images on it.

Nevertheless, needing to deal with Roman money but being unable to handle it personally, these priests hired money-handlers who would collect Roman money from the tax payers and then convert it to Jewish money which the Sadducees could handle.

These tax-collectors, constantly handling Roman coinage, were therefore constantly unclean, and therefore could not attend Temple, or Synagogue, or hug friends/family, or shake hands with people they met on the street, or be with their wives (unless she too were unclean). They inherited the nickname of "Sinner", or "publican". They were looked down on, because they were always "unclean". They may have been decent, honest, God-fearing people, but because of their role in society, they were social outcasts.

In Jericho, there was one of these guys, named Zakkai (meaning "clean" or "pure" in Hebrew, short for Zachariah, and rendered in English via the Greek and Latin intermediates as "Zacchaeus"). We read of his story in Luke 19.

Zakkai apparently dealt honestly in his business affairs, as his later statement, "If I have defrauded anyone...", indicates. He apparently had a generous heart, as his later pledge to give half of his possessions to the poor indicates. He was a man of short stature, which was one reason he climbed a tree to see Yahshua as Yahshua passed by.

But why climb a tree? Why couldn't Zakkai just get in front of the crowd in order to see the passing Yahshua? Simply because if he got too close to the average Jew, that person would recoil in horror and scream at him, "Don't touch me! You're unclean! Get away!" Climbing a tree thus served a two-fold purpose; it got him above the crowd where his view would be unobstructed, and it got him out of the crowd where he would not defile anyone.

As Yahshua passed by, he looked up into the tree and saw Zakkai, and told him to come down to be a host to Yahshua's retinue.

This was social anathema. The great rabbi is going to the house of a sinner, an unclean person; the great rabbi is defiling himself. What kind of rabbi is this, to associate with the scum of society?

But Yahshua, perceiving the whispering behind his back, answered:

"Today salvation has come to this house," Jesus told him, "because he too is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save the lost."

This must have made the Sadducean priests livid with rage. We, as non-Jews, miss the significance of what Yahshua said. If we knew the text of the Tanakh ("Old Testament"), we too would have understood what an offensive thing Yahshua had just said to the priests.

First, there's the play on words. Jesus' name, Yahshua, means "Yah saves"; he is God's salvation, and today, God's salvation has come to the house of the unclean Zacchaeus. Secondly, Yahshua's reference to the Son of Man and seeking and saving the lost is a reference to Ezekiel 34, and the priests would have heard the message clearly (although it's very vague to us Westerners).

I encourage you to read Ezekiel 34 for yourself, but in paraphrase it says this:

"Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel: Woe to you shepherds who only take care of yourselves. You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally. You trample the grass of the pasture so that my sheep can not eat. You muddy the water so that my sheep can not drink. You leave my sheep unattended on the hills to be eaten by the wolves. I am against you shepherds and will hold you accountable for my flock. I will remove you shepherds, and you will no longer be able to feed yourselves by using my flock as your food. I, YHWH, I myself will seek and save the lost.

So in this simple statement:

1. Yahshua has declared himself as God, in two different ways (Yah's salvation has come to the house; YHWH will seek and save the lost, which Yahshua is claiming as his role).
2. Yahshua has declared Zakkai as being a sheep beloved by God, not a sinner to be cast out of society, which probably was the most validation Zakkai had gotten as a valuable person in years.
3. Yahshua has declared the priests to be evil, by oppressing the sheep in order to satisfy their own appetites, and condemned them to losing their position.

An Imagined Word from YHWH

It was not a vision I had this morning, nor even a dream, as I was in that stage in which I had awoken from sleep but had not yet become fully conscious. I dare not call it a prophecy. What I would call it is an Imagining. I imagined YHWH declaring:

When my people grow comfortable, then I have cause for worry.