The New Testament is Not a Legal System

When we look at the New Testament as a legal contract, to which we must adhere in every aspect, we have simply replaced one legal system with another, and we have gotten it wrong. We have missed the mark.

The apostle Paul does not contrast the Law of Moses, the old legal system, with the Law of Christ*, a new legal system; he contrasts a legal system with a grace/faith system. (* The only time the phrase "law of Christ" is found is Gal 6:2, wherein it is said that this law is fulfilled by bearing one another's burdens.)

The New Testament is not a new legal code replacing an old legal code. The old legal code (the old covenant) was written in stone, for all to see. God prophesied (Jer 31:31ff) that the new covenant would not be like that old covenant. The result is a new covenant that does not have a list of laws like the old covenant had; it's not a legal system.

Yet we think it is, so we FIND (that is, invent) legalistic laws within the pages of the New Testament, and then we teach those man-invented laws as doctrine. Vanity, this is vanity.

Don't you think that if God wanted to replace one legal system with another legal system, he'd make the laws in the new system just as plain and clear as he did in the old system? Or do we think he's now hidden those laws "between the lines", perhaps to weed out those believers who aren't dedicated enough to dig to find them?

The "law of Christ" is not about rules and regulations, such as "don't handle, nor taste, nor touch". These rules certainly look religious, but they aren't of any value in changing who we really are; they're just externals (Col 2:16-23). The law of Christ is about bearing one another's burdens, about feeding the hungry, and dressing the naked, and about having joy and peace, and doing "the right thing" (Gal 6:2; Matt 25:31ff; Rom 14:17). The "royal law" is not about keeping or not keeping a Sabbath day or a Sunday or a Passover or an Easter as a holy day, or about eating or not eating meat sacrificed to idols, or about drinking a little wine with supper vs being a teetotaler, or even being in agreement with other believers on these and similar issues (like one-cuppers, or kitchens in the building, or instrumental music); it's about loving your neighbor, and taking care of the widow and orphan, and living a clean life (Col 2:16-17; Rom 14; Jam 2:8; 1:27).

Yes, there may be correct and incorrect answers to these issues, but not every believer may come to understand that correct answer, and more importantly, the New Testament may not even provide that correct answer, simply because ... the New Testament is not a legal system.

Rather, the New Testament is a record of Jesus, and of his early disciples as they learned to live within the new covenant. The New Testament "system" can be best summed up by Rom 12:1 - "Live your life in submission to God, on a moment-to-moment basis; this is your holy service."

It's not about tithing on pennies (or spices, as Jesus put it - Matt 23:23); it's about the weightier matters of justice and mercy and being heart-faithful (like a spouse to a spouse should be heart-faithful - not perfect performance, but perfect commitment to each other). Yes, take care of the small details also; tithe on the pennies if that's what your understanding leads you to do; but the legalities are not the focus.

When we ask if a man who has been widowed, and then marries a second time, can be an elder ("Does he meet the qualification of being the husband of one wife?"), we're looking at the New Testament as a legal system. We're looking at the letter of the law, which Paul says brings death (2 Cor 3:6). Instead, we should be making judgments based on having God's spirit within us, on having the heart of Jesus; what would Jesus do? Would he use such a man as a shepherd for his people, or would he disqualify the man on a technicality?

We supposedly are adults now, no longer children; we don't need the rules and regulations that children need. We don't look to technicalities to get away with what we can ("You just said I couldn't watch TV; you didn't say I couldn't watch Netflix on my smartphone"; "You said I could bake the batch of cookie dough and then have one cookie before bed; so I just made one big cookie out of the batch, so I didn't disobey you"). We now have maturity, based on how our parent has raised us. If we have the heart of Jesus within us, if we are led by God's spirit matured in us, and not by our own childish, legalistic spirit, we may then do all things, whether in word or in deed, in the name of Jesus Christ, even if there's not some rule somewhere that specifically governs that thing we are doing. If we are led by the spirit of Jesus, we don't have any need to "find" rules to cover whatever it is we're doing; we'll make a good choice based on our maturity we have in him.

Go, and be Jesus to the world. Don't teach a legal system; teach how to live as God-empowered, spirit-filled, grown-ups.

New Testament Unity

The Holy Spirit considered it "good" (Acts 15:28) for the Jewish Christians to continue keeping the law of Moses (as did Paul - Acts 21:24), while the Gentiles did not (Acts 15:1-29; 21:25). Thus forms two very different and distinct groups within Christianity: the Circumcision, and the Uncircumcision.

So whatever "unity" Jesus prayed for, it wasn't a unity of looking alike and having the same practices. A church on one corner of the street intersection that wore tassels on their clothes and kept the Sabbath and observed Kosher dietary restrictions was just as unified in Christ with the church on the other corner that looks just like your congregation, as yours is with its identical sister in the next town over.

Also, Paul makes it clear in Romans 14 that unity allows for one believer to absolutely be convinced that keeping a holy day is essential to salvation, whereas another believer can be absolutely convinced that keeping a holy day is nothing. He makes it clear that unity allows for one believer to be convinced that eating certain foods is damning, while another believer can be convinced that all foods are clean, just as Jesus had proclaimed years earlier (Mark 7:19).

So whatever "unity" Jesus prayed for, it wasn't a unity based on having the same doctrine on all the issues. It was based on love for one another, *despite* doctrinal differences.

Jesus didn't say his disciples would be known by their doctrine (therefore, neither should we); he said they'd be known by their love for one another.

When he separated the sheep from the goats, he didn't do so on the basis of doctrine (and therefore, neither should we); he did so on the basis of how they treated one another.

It seems "wise" and "logical" to base unity on thinking/believing exactly alike, based on a common source of authority. But the problem with that route is that the common source of authority is not nearly so clear on all the issues as one camp or the other claims it is, and therefore they come to different conclusions on the issues. Although you have likely been trained to believe that the NT clearly teaches X, some other equally-intelligent and equally-dedicated-to-Truth seeker has been trained to believe that the NT clearly teaches Not X; and the truth of the matter is that the NT does not teach either case "clearly"; it may mention it here or there, leading you to conclude that "see, here's a clear statement", but in most cases, it just ain't clear.

This is by design. The old covenant consisted of rules and regulations written in stone for all to see; but God said the new covenant was to be unlike the old covenant, based on relationship with him, not based on rules and regulations. Paul makes it clear in Col 2:20 that Christianity is not based on rules and regulations, and he says it again in Rom 14:17, and he often speaks of how the new covenant is not based on the letter of the law, like was the old covenant, but rather on the spirit. Rules and regulations are for children; but we're now adults, expected to make good decisions based on having God's mature spirit within us, not the immature spirit of a child. God no longer treats us as children, giving us rules for bedtime and rules for crossing the street and rules for saying "thank you to the nice man"; he expects us to act like adults, as Jesus would act. If we have the heart of Jesus, the externals are just that - external. Don't make religion about the externals, like the Pharisees did; make it about loving one another and taking care of the orphan and widow and bearing one another's burdens and doing the right thing and living a clean life.

When we take a position on any particular topic, and declare that it (and others like it) are the mark of authenticity of a "real Christian", making those issues tests of fellowship, insisting that if they don't arrive at "the Truth" (as we understand it), we have already failed Jesus and his plea for unity.

"Remember Me"

He had been their Commanding Officer for the past three years, and he had come to be both their leader and their friend; they trusted him completely.

This night was supposed to be a celebration, their favorite holiday meal. The trimmings were there, the rituals, the singing, but the night somehow had taken a darker tone than they had expected. The men didn't know what the C.O. knew. They knew he was about to embark on a dangerous mission, but they had no idea it was a suicide mission. The C.O. knew it though.

And he knew it wasn't just any old suicide mission. He knew it was going to result in two things: unspeakable torture for himself, and the turning point of the war resulting in the salvation of his people, and of these men of his whom he had come to love dearly.

He didn't explain it all to them; he had tried a few times, but they just didn't get it.

So this night, rather than wallowing in his fate, he merely looked at the yearly holiday meal rituals with which they were all familiar, and saw them in a new light. As the meal progressed, he co-opted these ancient rituals and cryptically told his men, "Whenever you do this in the future, remember me."

On the last night of this life, he told them to "have each others' backs", and to "remember me".

"Remember me".

Two-thousand years later, many of us gather yearly, like that original holiday Passover meal; some gather quarterly; and some gather weekly.

I realized this morning, that if I weren't attending a Christian assembly every Sunday morning, and participating in a very simplified, stripped-down version of that meal, I would probably just go about living life, oblivious to his last request.

I may not remember Jesus and his sacrifice particularly well, but I'm thankful he gave me a trigger to spur that periodic remembrance, so that I can slow down just a few seconds, and lift my cup in honor to Jesus, and say, "I remember."

The Ten Commandments

1. You shall have no other gods before Yahweh.
2. No idols.
3. Don't take/wear Yahweh’s name unless you mean it.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it special.
5. Honor your parents.
6. Do not murder.
7. Do not commit adultery.
8. Do not steal.
9. Do not lie about your neighbor.
10. Do not obsess about what your neighbor has.

The New Testament as a Legal Law System

I recently read the claim that "...man's typical nature resists authority (law)...".

In a sense this is true.

But also, in a sense, man's typical nature is to create law where none exists.

This was what Jesus accused the Pharisees of doing.

Humans, especially children, need structure.

Back in the 70s or 80s, progressive thinkers decided to take down the fences around elementary school yards, so the kids wouldn't feel like they were in jail. But the result is that the kids started staying away from the edges of the yard, because the edges were no longer safe. So in the 90s, up went the fences again, and now the kids feel safe enough to go to the very edge, taking full advantage of the school yard area.

The same is true in religion; as children, we needed the Law of Moses to define our boundaries. As adults, we no longer need the letter of the law, as we're led by the spirit, and know our own boundaries (or should).

This is why God, through Jeremiah (Jer 31:31ff), prophesied that the new covenant would not be like the old, laws written in stone, unflexible to changing needs, needing to be taught one to another, inviting punishment for infractions; rather, the new covenant is about "law" in our heart, based on relationship, based on knowing YHWH, and being forgiven for our infractions.

This is why Paul writes of being a minister of a new covenant, not of the letter (which kills), but of the spirit (2 Cor 3:6).

This is why there is no list of legal do's and dont's in the New Testament; it's a different type of covenant from the old covenant.

This is why Paul writes that it's worldly to think in terms of "don't touch this; don't taste that"; these external rules and regulations appear to be religious, but they have no value in steering your life from the inside (Col 2:20ff).

This is why Paul writes that the kingdom of God is not a matter of what you can and can't drink or eat, or keeping or not keeping this or that holy day, but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom 14:17 and context).

This is why Jesus emphasizes the inside of the cup (Matt 23:25-26), and the weightier matters of the law, rather than tithing on pennies (Matt 23:23).

This is why Jesus sums up the entire law in two broad principles: Love God, love each other (Matt 22:34-40).

The old covenant was a legal system; the new covenant is not a legal system.

This is Paul's point, when he contrasts salvation by faith/grace with salvation by law-keeping. He's not just talking about the Law of Moses; he's talking about *any* law. When you try to be justified by a legal system, you've fallen from grace, having adopted a different gospel than that which he preached.

James confirms this when he says that if you try to be saved by law, you have to keep all of the law; fail in any tiny detail, and you've failed in it all (Jam 2:10). So instead of living as if you're under a legal system, live as those who are judged under a law of liberty (v. 12). You want to fulfill the "legal system of Christ", the "royal law according to Scripture"? Then love your neighbor as yourself. That's it. That's the entirety of the perfect law of liberty (Jam 1:25; 2:8; 2:12). Paul confirms this, saying that bearing one another's burdens fulfills the law of Christ (Gal 6:2).

Pure religion is not about keeping a set of legal requirements; it's about visiting orphans and widows in their distress (Jam 1:27).

Jesus did not say his disciples would be known by their perfect doctrine, but by their love for one another (John 13:35).

When he divides the sheep from the goats (Matt 25), he won't do so on the basis of their doctrine, but on the basis of how they treated one another.

The new covenant is not a legal system like the old covenant was. But we "need" structure, we need law, and not finding it in a list of rules like we had in the old covenant, we search in the new covenant for that law by looking between the lines and by using human logic and by plucking this passage and piecing it together with another passage to arrive at a jigsaw-puzzle theology that gives us the laws we "need".

The new covenant is about the spirit, not the letter. Get that, and your outlook changes tremendously.

Do Specific Instructions Forbid Other Actions?

Guest blogger today - Christian Hope, who says,

I actually copied these thoughts from a man named Edward Lawrence. I encourage you to check out his website here: https://www.creedrehearsal.com/.../cre.../instrumental-music

I did add some thoughts into it. I just desire to be honest and consistent.

[Many Christians believe] that when God specifies one specific action then therefore all other kinds or similar types are automatically excluded. I used to hold this view but have changed it due to in-depth searching, prayer and more studying.

If we're going to view Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16 this way, which I believe we shouldn't, then let's view the whole New Testament this way. For example:

Greet one another with a holy kiss.
(Rom 16:16, 1 Cor 16:20, 2 Cor 13:12, 1 Thes 5:26, 1 Pet 5:14)

Kisses are a kind of greeting and are specified as the kind of greeting Christians are to use. Therefore, all other kinds of greetings are excluded and thus unauthorized. Handshakes, hugs, waving, etc. are all unauthorized forms of greetings.

No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities.
1 Tim 5:23

Wine is a kind of medicine and is specified as the kind of medicine Christians are to use for their infirmities. Therefore, all other kinds of medicines are excluded and thus unauthorized. Penicillin, Pepto-Bismol, Tylenol and all other forms of medicine are unauthorized.

And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.
Heb 10:24-25

There can be many kinds of assemblies (social, entertainment, educational, etc), but the kind of assemblies Christians are specified to gather in are for the purpose of spiritual edification. Therefore, all other reasons why Christians might assemble are excluded and thus unauthorized.

Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.
James 5:14

There are many kinds of "healers" (doctors, nurses, 911, etc.) who can alleviate illnesses, but the kinds of "healers" specified for Christians are elders of the church. Therefore, all other "healers" (doctors, nurses, 911, etc.) are excluded and thus unauthorized.

Now obviously, we don't interpret these other passages in the same way we interpret the ones about singing. If we are going to remain consistent, we are going to have to admit that we can't apply the concept of specific authority to the "singing" passages in an attempt to forbid musical instruments. Otherwise we had better start greeting one another only with kisses, using wine as our only medicine, and so forth. Ephesians 5 is talking about our lives. We must remain in context. I say this with love and am always open to reproof. Also look at 1 Cor 10:21-31. I believe Paul is talking about the things which God has not specifically forbidden in scripture.

Worship vs Service

Lucas Necessary writes:

I think that two words are important: worship and service. Old covenant worship was in Jerusalem, and occurred when the non-priest presented himself to the Lord at the temple in Jerusalem. Old covenant service was the activity of the priest in presenting offerings and sacrifices to the Lord. Hence the people of Israel collectively worshiped and served God. And if the hearts of the worshipers were not right, then the offering of sacrifices was in vain (see Isaiah 1). Acceptable service thus flows from worship.

But worship under the new covenant is not in Jerusalem, nor in any other physical location - it is internal; it is in Spirit and in truth (John 4:20-24). Just as old covenant service of the priests flowed from the worship of the people, new covenant service is derived from new covenant worship. Rather than flowing from people to priest, new covenant worship moves from external to internal. Worship is in spirit; in service the body is offered as a living and holy sacrifice (Romans 12:1). Worship is the internal devotion of the individual; service is the outward expression of that which flows from within. If the heart is not right, then that which is offered externally is in vain. "To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled" (Titus 1:15).

Let us consider, then, five acts of service - spiritual sacrifices of a spiritual priesthood, which are misnamed worship in denominational, unscriptural terminology.

Singing and Praying

These two can be considered together in that they are both audible expressions which ascend to God. "Through Him [Christ] then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name" (Hebrews 13:15). Sacrifice of praise is the offering of a priest; it is service.

Giving

"Do not neglect doing good and sharing; for with such sacrifices God is pleased" (Hebrews 13:16). Again, sharing or giving is a sacrifice; it is a service.

Preaching or Bible study

Paul wrote that he was "a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the Gospel of God, that my offering of the Gentiles might become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit" (Romans 15:16). Preaching the gospel, as well as the fruit of that preaching, is an offering of a spiritual priest. It is a sacrifice; it is service.

The Lord’s Supper

"Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?" (I Corinthians 10:16). The participation in the body and blood of Christ is compared to the Levitical priests sharing in their offering. "Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the alter?" (I Corinthians 10:18). Thus the participation in the Lord’s Supper is participation in a spiritual sacrifice offered on a spiritual altar. "We have an altar, from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat" (Hebrews 13:10). Those who participate in the Lord’s Supper, participate in a sacrifice, it is service.

Conclusion

Worshiping in spirit and truth - internally and continually - results in spiritual service - external actions - from a spiritual priesthood. This is what is acceptable to God. "You also as living stones are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (I Peter 2:5).

Do All In the Name of the Lord

WEB Col 3:17 - Whatever you do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father, through him.

"In the name of" simply means "as an authorized agent of"; it does not mean everything done must be specifically pre-authorized.

It means asking, "Is my action honoring to the authorizer, in accord with his wishes?" It does not mean, "Is my action specifically authorized by the authorizer?"

The concepts are easy to confuse, but they are not the same.

You can make a donation to the anti-cancer society in the name of your deceased friend; that doesn't mean the deceased friend authorized you to make that donation; it means you do it in honor of your friend, in a way with which he would agree.

To do all in the name of the Lord means to do everything as an authorized spokesperson/ambassador of the Lord. It means you have the keys to Jesus' kingdom, locking and unlocking doors as you judge best, as long as you do so in honor of and in accord with the wishes of Jesus. Specific authorization is not required; adult, faith-led, decision-making capability is.

Muscle and a Shovel

A quick note about Michael Shank's book, A Muscle and a Shovel....

As I read Muscle..., I was reminded of our (traditional Church of Christ) insistence on using and knowing the Bible, and it made me proud of our brotherhood for that.

On the other hand, I was discouraged that the book found salvation in keeping legalities supposedly given by God rather than in relationship with God. I understand that mentality; I was raised in it. I understand that when you're in that mentality you can't see that you're in it, you only see that if you get the legalities wrong you go to hell, so we have to get the legalities right.

That's the first error of this book, seeking legalities rather than relationship.

The second error is a natural consequence of the first; since we must find the legalities, and since the New Testament doesn't provide a nice numbered list of them (like the Ten Legalities), we have to find those legalities by reading between the lines and by back-porting our current doctrines into the text (whether they're there or not) and by using a jigsaw-puzzle approach whereby we take this verse out of context and match it with that verse out of context to create a picture that isn't really in the text but seems like it came from the text.

This is what Muscle... does, and it does it very convincingly. And many people, especially those who haven't learned to see beyond this method, will gobble it up as if it's gospel.

Christianity is a Jewish Sect

Christianity, all the way through to the end of the book of Acts, was a sect of Judaism, not something separate and distinct:

WEB Acts 2:46 Day by day, continuing steadfastly with one accord in the temple ...47 praising God, and having favor with all the people.

Note that the Christians were meeting in a Jewish place, praising God alongside other Jews in this Jewish place, having favor with those Jews, who would not take kindly to having their religion maligned in any way.

Acts 3:1 Peter and John were going up into the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour.

Note that these new Christians still went to Temple at the hour of prayer, like good Jews would do.

Acts 5:42 Every day, in the temple and at home, they never stopped teaching and preaching Jesus, the Christ.

The Christians were still Jews, meeting in the Jewish temple.

Acts 9:1-2 But Saul, still breathing threats and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, 2 and asked for letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

Note that Saul expected to find Christians in the Jewish synagogues.

Acts 10:28 [Peter] said to them, “You yourselves know how it is an unlawful thing for a man who is a Jew to join himself or come to one of another nation, but God has shown me that I shouldn’t call any man unholy or unclean. 29 Therefore also I came without complaint when I was sent for. I ask therefore, why did you send for me?”

Note that until the apostle Peter was given a special miraculous vision, he wasn't going to have anything to do with Gentiles.

Acts 10:34 Peter opened his mouth and said, “Truly I perceive that God doesn’t show favoritism; 35 but in every nation he who fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him. 36 The word which he sent to the children of Israel, preaching good news of peace by Jesus Christ—he is Lord of all....

Note that up until this point in time, Peter was convinced that the message of Jesus was sent only to the children of Israel, and is astounded to realize that it's for non-Jews also.

Acts 11:1 Now the apostles and the brothers who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. 2 When Peter had come up to Jerusalem, those who were of the circumcision contended with him, 3 saying, “You went in to uncircumcised men, and ate with them!”

Note that the other apostles and Christians were shocked that Peter went to non-Jews.

Acts 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life!”

Note that the other apostles and Christians were finally convinced that Christianity was not just for Jews.

Acts 11:19 They therefore who were scattered abroad by the oppression that arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except to Jews only.

And yet some of them just couldn't get beyond the belief that Christianity was for Jews only.

Acts 11:25 Barnabas went out to Tarsus to look for Saul. 26 When he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they were gathered together with the assembly, and taught many people. The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

Note that it wasn't until non-Jews became followers of the Way that a new name was needed to refer to this non-Jewish branch of the sect.

Acts 13:2 As they served the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Separate Barnabas and Saul for me, for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. 4 So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia. From there they sailed to Cyprus. 5 When they were at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the Jewish synagogues.

Note that still, for the most part, Christianity was a Jewish phenomenon; the apostles didn't go to the Greek temples to preach, but to the Jewish meeting houses.

Acts 13:23 From this man’s offspring, God has brought salvation to Israel according to his promise, 24 before his coming, when John had first preached the baptism of repentance to Israel. 25 As John was fulfilling his course, he said, ‘What do you suppose that I am? I am not he. But behold, one comes after me the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie.’ 26 Brothers, children of the stock of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, the word of this salvation is sent out to you.

Note that even though Paul was specifically called to be an apostle to the Gentiles, he still preached in his early years "to Israel", that the salvation was "for Israel", to the children of the stock of Abraham.

Acts 13:46 Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, and said, “It was necessary that God’s word should be spoken to you first. Since indeed you thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. 47 For so has the Lord commanded us, saying, ‘I have set you as a light for the Gentiles, that you should bring salvation to the uttermost parts of the earth.’”

Note that finally Paul starts to get it; Christianity is not just for the Jews!

Acts 15:1 Some men came down from Judea and taught the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised after the custom of Moses, you can’t be saved.” 2 Therefore when Paul and Barnabas had no small discord and discussion with them, they appointed Paul and Barnabas, and some others of them, to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question.

Now Paul has to go back to the other apostles to convince them that the new Gentile believers don't have to "become Jews" to be included in the Way.

Acts 15:30 So, when they were sent off, they came to Antioch. Having gathered the multitude together, they delivered the letter. 31 When they had read it, they rejoiced over the encouragement.

Yay, the Gentiles don't have to become Jews to be saved!

Acts 16:4 As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered the decrees to them to keep which had been ordained by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.

Let's tell all the Gentiles they don't have to become Jews!

Acts 17:22 Paul stood in the middle of the Areopagus, and said, “You men of Athens, I perceive that you are very religious in all things.

Now Paul goes to the Greek temples to preach.

Acts 18:7 He departed there, and went into the house of a certain man named Justus, one who worshiped God, whose house was next door to the synagogue. 8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his house. Many of the Corinthians, when they heard, believed and were baptized.

But Paul still does most of his preaching to the Jews, sometimes converting the ruler of the synagogue.

Acts 18:17 Then all the Greeks laid hold on Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat. Gallio didn’t care about any of these things.

Sometimes these converted synagogue rulers retained their position as synagogue ruler. (This particular one winds up co-writing 1 Corinthians - 1 Cor 1:1.)

Acts 18:26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside, and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

Note that Priscilla and Aquila are still assembling in the synagogue. Cf the Greek of James 2:2, which also shows Christians meeting in synagogues.

Acts 21:21 They have been informed about you, that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children neither to walk after the customs. 22 What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do what we tell you. We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them, and purify yourself with them, and pay their expenses for them, that they may shave their heads. Then all will know that there is no truth in the things that they have been informed about you, but that you yourself also walk keeping the law.

The rumor was that Paul was telling Jews to stop being Jewish; that was a false rumor. In fact, Paul himself continued being Jewish, walking according to the Law of Moses.

Acts 23:6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Men and brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. Concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!”

Paul declares himself, loudly, to be a Pharisee, currently. Not a former Pharisee. He's still very much a Jew.

Acts 24:5 For we have found this man to be a plague, an instigator of insurrections among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.

Note that the enemies of Paul considered his new religion a "sect" aimed at Jews.

Acts 24:14 But this I confess to you, that after the Way, which they call a sect, so I serve the God of our fathers, believing all things which are according to the law, and which are written in the prophets;

Note that the enemies of Paul considered his new religion a "sect".

Acts 25:8 while he said in his defense, “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar, have I sinned at all.”

Paul has done nothing against the Jewish law or temple.

Acts 25:18 Concerning whom, when the accusers stood up, they brought no charge of such things as I supposed; 19 but had certain questions against him about their own religion, and about one Jesus, who was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.

Note that Governor Festus believed Christianity to be about "their own religion", referring to Judaism.

Acts 26:3 especially because you are expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews.

Note that Paul's defense hinges on the customs and questions among the Jews.

Acts 28:7 After three days Paul called together those who were the leaders of the Jews. When they had come together, he said to them, “I, brothers, though I had done nothing against the people, or the customs of our fathers, still was delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans....

Note that Paul had done nothing against Judaism.

Acts 28:22 But we desire to hear from you what you think. For, as concerning this sect, it is known to us that everywhere it is spoken against.

Note that in context, the Jews in Rome had not gotten any letters or info from Judea against Paul, only against his sect.

Justified by Faith

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

There's a huge difference between studying (and even keeping! see Acts 21:21-24) the law and desiring to be justified by keeping that law.

Paul kept the law (as did thousands of other Jewish believers, zealously - Acts 21:21-24), but he did not seek to be justified by that keeping of the law; he was justified by his faith in Christ.

Seeking to be justified by anything other than faith in Christ (whether that be by keeping the Law of Moses, or keeping the sub-set of that Law known as the Ten Commandments, or keeping the supposed law of the Five-Step Plan of Salvation, etc) is to fall from grace which Jesus bestows upon those who trust in him (as opposed to those who trust in their own right-ness in keeping some "law"); this doctrine is the other gospel about which Paul warns four chapters earlier (Gal 1:6ff).

Paul spends chapter two of Galatians explaining how it took a major conference with the elders and apostles in Jerusalem to conclude that Gentiles were not required to keep the law (detailed in Acts 15), because law-keeping (either by Jews or Gentiles) is not the way to justification. Justification is by faith, and justification by law-keeping is "another gospel".

Paul spends chapter three of Galatians explaining that Abraham was justified when he believed, before he acted, and that no man is justified by law, and that trying to keep the law is a curse, because no one can do it (you must live by the rules perfectly or you're a law-breaker; only Jesus did that perfectly, and he became that curse for us). So who are the blessed now? The ones who seek to be justified by law-keeping? No. The ones who are blessed are those who are of faith with the faithful Abraham, who was declared right when he had faith, before he did any right action. (Note that his faith was not a dead faith; it was a working faith, that drove him to do right actions; it was not a faith without works, but rather a faith before works, as opposed to the faith of demons, which has no works other than to make those demons tremble - Jam 2.)

Paul spends chapter four of Galatians explaining how that keeping rules and regulations are merely worldly, "miserable elemental principles", a form of "bondage" (v. 9-10). He tells the Colossians the same thing, but in more detail even (see Col 2:16ff).

Paul then wraps up in chapter five of Galatians, telling his readers to stand firm in liberty, not becoming again entangled with a yoke of bondage; if you keep law, you have to keep all of it. And if you go that route, seeking to be justified by keeping some law, any law, not just the Mosaic Law, you are fallen from grace. The "law" you are to fulfill is this - "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (v. 14). (He repeats himself a chapter later, emphasizing that "the law of Christ" is fulfilled by bearing one another's burdens - 6:2.) Walk by the spirit, not by the law. (He says in another place that we are to serve in the newness of the spirit, not in the oldness of the letter - Rom 7:6; and that his team are servants of a covenant, not of the letter, but of the spirit - 2 Cor 3:6; and that the true Jew is one who is circumcised in the spirit, not the letter - Rom 2:29.)

Paul finishes out his letter in chapter 6 of Galatians by pointing out that even the law-keepers fail to keep the law - 6:13.

Yet even though Paul is adamant that we are saved by faith rather than by law-keeping, he himself walked according to the law (Acts 21:24), and he upholds the law (Rom 3:31), and says it's holy (Rom 7:12) and good (7:16).

Paul makes a huge distinction between keeping the law as something good to keep, and keeping it in order to be justified by keeping it. We, too, should make that distinction.

No More Corruption/Death

When the resurrected Jesus appeared to his disciples::

WEB Luke 24:38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled? Why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 See my hands and my feet, that it is truly me. Touch me and see, for a spirit doesn’t have flesh and bones, as you see that I have.”

Later, the apostle Paul said:

WEB Acts 13:34 “Concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he has spoken thus: ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’"

Elsewhere Paul writes:

WEB Rom 6:9 [We know] that Christ, being raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no more has dominion over him!

Two New Prayer Thoughts

Yesterday I had cause to plead earnestly in prayer to God, and as I did so, two "new" thoughts came to my mind.

• I did not want to pray for "resolve"; I wanted to pray for God's Spirit/Power within me.

If I decide to do something, that is Me doing; but if I have the Power of God within me, if his Spirit is my spirit, mingled, intertwined, then it is God doing it.

It makes no sense to pray to God that I would make my own decision and resolve; it makes sense that I would tell God about it, but not to ask him to "help" me to do it, unless, of course, he's actually involved in helping.

When I ask for help from God, I'm really asking for his Spirit to be active within me, not just for me to resolve to do something myself.

• I wanted to pray to "be a Man".

I wasn't praying to be a bully, or to "take control", or to ignore the needs of others; I was praying to not be passive-aggressive, to not be a whiner.

I tend to be a peace-maker; I want people to be gentle with each other; I'm a great believer in trying to "walk in the other person's shoes", to understand their perspective and their needs and wants, and to be self-sacrificial in meeting those needs/wants.

But I also have needs/wants, and sometimes in being self-sacrificial, I wind up stuffing my own needs/wants, and all that does is allow those needs/wants to simmer beneath the surface. This passiveness of mine eventually erupts in a moment of greater need/want, and I become aggressive, but in an unhealthy way.

The better solution is to "be a Man"; to hear the other person's perspective/needs/wants, but to also express my own perspective/needs/wants, rather than simply stuffing them to deal with them later. (And I need to express them in a manly manner, not in a simpering, whiny way.)

Already I've written way more words on these two issues than what is justified by my as-yet limited understanding of what either of them really mean, but I sense that both of these prayer thoughts are important, and wanted to get them written down in some form before they fall out of my memory/consciousness.

Wearing the Name of Christ

Might I suggest a re-think of what is meant by "wears the name of Christ"?

It has been strong in our Church of Christ culture to think in physical terms, of having the label "of Christ" on our buildings and our web sites and our bulletin letterheads.

But I'm reminded of the second of the Ten Commandments: You shall not take the name of YHWH your God in vain. For years, I took this to mean that we weren't supposed to *use* the "name" in an improper way, such as saying, "Oh, God, this pizza is good!"

The Jews took it that way too, which eventually evolved into their thinking that the name shouldn't be used at all, which is why they then altered the written scriptures to hide the name of YHWH behind the generic term "Lord" (the way most of our printed English Bibles still do).

But since then I've come to believe that it's more like a bride being encouraged to honor her husband's name by living honorably with him; don't take your husband's name in vain by having dalliances with the milkman and the pool-boy; be faithful to the name you have taken.

If you're going to wear the name "of Christ", then behave worthy of the name.

I'm not sure that "wearing the name of Christ" really refers to having "Church of Christ" on the sign out front of your meeting place; I think it refers to having "of Christ" in your everyday behavior.

Restoring the New Testament Church

Which New Testament church should we restore?

The one that was exclusively Jewish, and praised God in the Temple daily wherein instruments were used (Acts 2:46-47), and lived a communistic lifestyle (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32), and didn't have deacons, but having the need, invented the role (Acts 6:1-6)?

The later one that moved out of Jerusalem into the surrounding territories and met in houses (Acts 8:3), wherein they had their prayer meetings at night (Acts 12:4,12), and in synagogues (Acts 19:8-9; 22:19; Jam 2:2), and thought that non-Jews were unclean and were not to be socialized with, requiring a vision and a miracle to get them to accept non-Jews (Acts 10-1, esp 11:3), and that had elders (from amongst mere days-old Christians) appointed for every assembly by a higher authority rather than the assemblies appointing their own (Acts 14:23)?

The still later, short-lived one, that accepted Gentiles, but only if the Gentiles were circumcised and obeyed the rest of the law of Moses (Acts 15:1,5)?

The one shortly after that which called together a multi-church conference, and issued a decree for all the churches (Acts 16:4) to accept Gentiles without them first "converting to Judaism", resulting in two "denominations" within the church of Jesus Christ, one called "the Circumcision" (Gal 2:12), composed of Jews who still kept the law of Moses zealously (Acts 21:20), and one called "the Gentiles" (Gal 2:12), which did not keep the law of Moses (Acts 21:24-25), which though they had different worship practices (Paul even kept Nazirite vows (Acts 18:18), necessitating animal sacrifice and purity rituals at its conclusion (Acts 21:26; 24:18)), were united because Jesus had torn down the middle wall of hostility dividing them (Eph 2:14), even though some of "the Circumcision" kept trying to re-erect that wall (for which Paul publicly scolded Peter - Gal 2:11ff)?

Or perhaps you mean the later Gentile-only church that started turning against "the Circumcision", blaming all of them for what a few of their leaders did, which after the destruction of the Temple, culminated in a post-New Testament exclusively-Gentile church that rejected all things Jewish, not just as un-needed in a Gentile culture, but as sinful, such as Sabbath-keeping or musical instruments in [Temple] worship (the synagogues, wherein the Gentiles learned "church", never had instruments (as a rule)), re-erecting that wall which Jesus had torn down just as "the Circumcision" (in contradiction to the Gospel - Gal 2:14) before them had tried to re-erect?

So when we speak of restoring the New Testament church, just which of these churches should we restore? The oldest, most original, which was exclusively Jewish and worshiped daily in a place where instruments were used and didn't have deacons? Or the latest, which was turning anti-Jewish, re-erecting that wall which Jesus had torn down and headed toward forbidding marriage and the eating of certain foods (1 Tim 4:3), and which had stopped meeting daily? Or something in between those two ends?

And do we try to restore the practice of praying for gifts of the spirit (1 Cor 14:13) and fan the flame of that gift (2 Tim 1:6)), or do we quench the Spirit (1 Thess 5:19) because now we "now know in full" and we have all matured to the unity of the faith (Eph 4:13), therefore such gifts have ceased (1 Cor 13:12)?

I judge that it's just not all that simple to restore the New Testament church, and that if we think we've accomplished that goal (or even can), we may not have thought it through very well.

Legalism

Through Jeremiah, YHWH promised a new covenant that was not to be like the old covenant. The old covenant was a legal system that consisted of rules written down in stone; the new covenant consists of a heart-based relationship:

WEB Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, says Yahweh, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Yahweh. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says Yahweh: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people: 34 and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Yahweh; for they shall all know me, from their least to their greatest, says Yahweh: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.

Many in the church of Christ today believe that God simply traded out one legal system for another, the Law of Christ replacing the Law of Moses. They support this viewpoint by:

• mentioning the "law of Christ" (and yet the only place the phrase is used - Gal 6:4 - it is defined, not as a legal system, but as bearing one another's burdens)
• mentioning the "perfect law of liberty" (James 1:25, and yet two verses later he writes, not a description of a legal system, but that "Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.")
• mentioning the "royal law" (and yet the only place the phrase is used - Jam 2:8 - it is defined, not as a legal system, but as loving your neighbor as yourself)
• pointing out the several uses of the phrase "THE faith" (ex. Gal 1:23), insisting this translates to "the faith legal-system"

However, the New Testament does not contrast the old and new covenants as a legal system vs a different legal system; it contrasts them as a legal system vs a grace system. Example:

WEB Rom 3:28 We maintain therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Many brethren understand the words "works of the law" to refer exclusively to the old legal system of the law of Moses, and feel justified to then conclude that the word "faith" refers to the new legal system.

But Paul doesn't contrast legal system against legal system; he contrasts legal system against faith. He spends much of chapter 2 of Colossians explaining that our new system is not about external legalities such as "don't touch this, don't taste that, keep this holy day, keep that ritual, etc", claiming that these things are "elements of the world". He says elsewhere that he's a minister of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the spirit (2 Cor 3:6).

A "legalist" is someone who finds his righteousness in being right according to how well he keeps the letter of the law. The Pharisees were condemned for their legalism. Jesus did not condemn them for keeping the law; he condemned them for trusting in their own rightness in keeping the legalities.

When we declare ourselves saved (or "right") because we have successfully kept the letter of a legal system (any legal system, including the "Five Step Plan of Salvation"), then we have become legalists.

We are not saved by our own right-ness in keeping the legal system; rather we trust Jesus, who is the only one who ever successfully kept the legal system, to grant to us his right-ness. That right-ness is granted to us, not because we have attained a "passing grade" in keeping the requirements of some legal system, but because we have faith in him.

If you think you're saved because you've attained a passing grade because of what you've done (being scripturally baptized, for example), you're a legalist. Further, you have adopted another gospel than that which the apostles preached. "You are alienated from Christ, you who desire to be justified by the law. You have fallen away from grace" (Gal 5:4).

To be sure, if we love Christ, we will keep his commandments. To be sure, some commandments are "required". But we are not saved by keeping the letter of the law; we are saved by faith in Jesus who kept the letter of the law for us. (And the reverse-angle - if we refuse to keep the commandment, this demonstrates that the "faith" we have is not a saving-type faith, like was Abraham's, but is rather a dead faith, like that of the demons - James 2.)

So to the extent we understand the "requirements", we must strive to keep them. But failure to keep the letter of the law, either through ignorance or weakness or even occasional outright rebellion, will not invalidate our salvation (do your occasionally rebellious teens get disowned? no? because it's about relationship, not the letter of the law); what matters is not trusting in our own right-ness in keeping the law, but in trusting Jesus to be faithful in applying his right-ness to us. It's not about keeping the letter of the law, but the spirit.

If you believe that someone is lost who has the right spirit but has completely missed the letter of the law, then you are a legalist. God does not look at how well you keep the externals of keeping the letter of the law; he looks at what is going on in the heart. When God poured out his Spirit on the Gentiles in Cornelius' group, he testified that he did so because he had already seen into their hearts, that he had been successful in cleansing their hearts by faith, not by their keeping of the letter of any law:

ESV Acts 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. (It was only after this demonstration that Peter commanded they be baptized - Acts 10:44-48.)

"Legally", we are not saved until we have been properly and scripturally converted, including immersion in water in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, and we, having only human eyes with which to see, have no business claiming otherwise, or especially substituting a non-Biblical, man-made legal system of salvation such as the so-called "Sinner's Prayer". But in God's eyes, salvation is not a matter of works, of keeping the letter of the law; it's about faith/commitment/decision - it's a matter of the heart/spirit.

The old covenant was like a business arrangement, wherein each party was committed to keeping the required obligations specified in the covenant. The new covenant is like a marriage, or an adoption, in which each party is committed to each other, regardless of the failures in keeping the "required obligations" of marriage/parenthood/childhood.

Are you in a business relationship with Jesus, or in a family relationship with him?

Those Evil Christmas Trees

I've been in a conversation with someone on-line who claims that Jeremiah 10:2-4 condemns Christmas trees (and by extension, Christmas).

That chapter condemns idols, not Christmas trees (go read the chapter for yourself; it won't take but 2-3 minutes).

Here's my response to him:

Yes, we are to judge righteous judgment; but the scriptures (Rom 14:4-6) specifically state to not judge a brother about keeping one day as more special than any other day.

Your zeal is to be commended; it's obvious you want to please the Lord, and that is an awesome thing. But it should not be an excuse to condemn a brother for doing something the scriptures specifically allow (honoring one day to the Lord more so than some other day).

The kingdom of God is not a matter of what you eat or what you drink or what days you consider higher than others, but of 'doing the right thing' and being at peace with one another and being joyous in the Holy Spirit (Rom 14:17, paraphrased).

Focusing on "regulations" (ESV; "ordinances" in the KJV and WEB) such as "don't touch, don't taste, don't handle", or judging someone in eating, or in drinking, or with respect to a feast day or a new moon or a Sabbath (Col 2:16-23) sounds holy, like you're offering acceptable "worship", but they're the wrong thing to focus on - these things are just "rudiments of the world", shadows of the real thing; these are "precepts of men" (same passage).

When you make rules which God has not made (like "Thou shalt not observe Christmas"), they are mere precepts of men (or "commandments of men" as Jesus put it), and when you teach them as doctrine, you're participating in vain, empty worship (Matt 15:9).

The kingdom of God is not about finding rules buried "between the lines" and then judging brothers for not honoring the rules you've "found"; it's about righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. It's not about keeping the letter of the law, but the Spirit - Paul believes this point is so important he says it over and over (Rom 2:29; 7:6; 2 Cor 3:6).

If you perceive the "letter of the law" to forbid honoring the birth of Jesus on Christmas and using that occasion to fulfill the joy prophesied by the angels, using that occasion to proclaim the name of Jesus to the world, then you can not do so by faith, and you should absolutely not do so. But you should not condemn your brothers who believe they are keeping the spirit of God's will by honoring the joyous birth of his son and reminding the world once a year of the message they would otherwise quickly forget, that God Is With Us.

The New Covenant is Not Like the Old

Members of the New Testament church often treat the New Testament as if it's essentially of the same nature as the old - a system of rules and regulations.

I would encourage such members to hear this one thing: the new covenant is not like the old. So many of us have simply swapped out one legal system (with its laws written on stone, for all to see) for another legal system (with its laws hidden mostly between the lines, requiring just the right love of the Truth and just the right hermeneutic in order to find them). But, the new covenant is not like the old.

The writer of the book of Hebrews quotes a prophecy found in Jeremiah 31:31ff:

ESVm Heb 8:8 For he finds fault with them when he says: “Behold, the days are coming, declares YHWH, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.

And what does it mean to be "not like the [old] covenant"?

The old covenant was a system of rules and regulations, written in stone for all to see, in which you had to keep the letter of the law; the new covenant is a relationship, in which you need to keep the spirit:

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares YHWH: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. [ie. this describes a relationship]
11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ [it's not about head-knowledge]
for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. [it's about relationship]

WEB Rom 2:29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not from men, but from God. [it's about the spirit, not the letter of the law]

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

2 Cor 3:6 [God] also made us sufficient as servants of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. [it's about the spirit, not the letter of the law]

The first covenant was about "ordinances of divine service" (Heb 9:1), consisting of "gifts and sacrifices" that are "incapable ... of making the worshiper perfect" (v. 9), consisting of "fleshly ordinances" (v. 10) like "don't touch, don't taste, don't handle" (Col 2:21), don't eat this, don't marry, don't drink that (1 Tim 4:3), don't play this instrument, don't clap, don't observe Christmas. But Jesus has brought us a new covenant, by fulfilling the regulations of the old, and has thus cleansed us, not by our paying the debt which we owed to the law, but by our faith in him who paid the debt which he didn't owe (Heb 9:11ff).

The new covenant, the kingdom of God, is not built around regulations like what you eat or drink, but around doing the right thing and having peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom 14:17). Nothing is unclean of itself (Rom 14:14) -- not eating meats sacrificed to idols, not drinking a little wine with supper, not eating with unwashed hands, not playing an instrument while praising God, not observing (or not observing) a new moon or a Sabbath; these things are just a shadow of the new way (Col 2:16). They indeed appear like wisdom in worship; but ultimately they have no value (Col 2:22).

Once a person begins to grasp that their salvation is not dependent on how well they themselves keep the law (however you define "the law" - as the Ten Commandments, or as the Law of Moses, or as The Law of Christ, or as the Perfect Law of Liberty, or as the Two Greatest Commands, or whatever), but rather on their relationship to the one who kept the law perfectly, life begins to change, and freedom begins to creep in. (But take care, lest your freedom tromp on the scruples of a brother, which is wrong.)

ESV Gal 5:1 For freedom Christ has set us free....

Don't submit again to a yoke of slavery of keeping this rule and that regulation and tithing this and limiting that.

Gal 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Our "whole law" is not about finding hidden rules in the text - don't use instruments; don't drink; take the Lord's Supper every first day of the week; there's nothing wrong with these things. But they are not our whole law. Instead, our whole law is to love one another. And lest you think that's not the case, the inspired apostle Paul repeats himself:

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

And lest you think Paul has missed it, the inspired writer James reiterates this message:

Jam 2:8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well.

James also speaks of true religion; he does not say it's about tithing and keeping certain days holy and worshiping according to these or those regulations; he says it's about visiting orphans and widows in their affliction, and living a clean life (Jam 1:27).

Jesus, when declaring how his disciples would be known, did not say, "By this will all men know you're my disciples, if you have the correct doctrine and worship in the correct way". Rather, he said, "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:25).

And when Jesus separates the sheep from the goats, he does not do so on the basis of who kept what rule, but on how we treat one another (Matt 25:31-46).

Relationship. Freedom. Love.

Not rules, regulations, perfect obedience.

When you get that, perfect love then casts out fear (1 John 4:18). The one who is still afraid he's not "good enough to get into heaven" has not yet been perfected in love (same verse), which is, to say, suffering from "performance anxiety".

At that point in time, you'll be free to praise God with everything you have - your voice, your heart, your guitar, your feet, your hands, your body, your absolute everything. Until then, you'll always have to "ride the brake" in order to make sure you "don't go beyond what is written".

Before closing, let me give one example of this "performance anxiety". Last week we had a baptism; a new brother was added to our number. When he came up out of the waters of immersion, there was a smattering of applause from amongst the witnesses, but the church as a whole frowned on the applause, because "clapping is not allowed". The congregation was "riding the brake" to avoid breaking an unwritten "rule".

The freedom to express joy at a new spiritual birth was squashed because of a "rule" which can not be found in the New Testament. When Peter healed the lame man in Acts 3, this man was not restricted from expressing his joy; he "walked and leaped and praised god"(v.8).

This restriction on expressing joy occurred because we treat the new covenant as if it is like the old, a system of rules and regulations, rather than as a relationship between us and God and others. The new covenant is not like the old, but we have made it such, and in so doing, have created something God did not create.

Blessings.

The First Day of the Week

The following is written in response to a forum-member on Facebook claiming:

The first century church account took the communion on the first day of the week. Didache recorded it.

I'm unaware that the Didache records that the first century church took the communion on the first day of the week. Could you provide a reference, please?

I am aware that the Didache records that the first century church took the communion on "the Lord's day" (14:1 - http://www.paracletepress.com/didache.html), but it's an assumption that "the Lord's day" refers to the first day of the week. It probably so refers, but it is an assumption. (A decent case can be made from scripture (not post-scripture writings) that "the Lord's day" refers to the Sabbath; I don't believe that's the case, but the point is that "the Lord's day" simply isn't defined by scripture; we make assumptions as to what it means.)

The Didache also tells us we should fast on Wednesdays and Fridays (8:1); this is obviously adding to God's word, as there is no Biblical command to do this, just as there is no Biblical command to eat the Lord's Supper on any particular day. To insist there is such a command, or to appeal to post-Biblical writings to insist there is such a command, is to add to God's word just as surely as commanding fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays.

Regardless of what the practice was in 40 A.D., or 70 A.D. or 99 A.D., or 325 A.D., the Bible simply never makes a command to eat the Lord's Supper with any particular frequency on any particular day at any particular time of the day in any particular manner. The best we have in the Biblical text is:

• the inauguration, which took place in the midst of a full-blown meal which took place annually, at night-time, re-purposing some of the elements of that meal (Mark 14:, esp v. 12, 17, 22-25) 
• a hint of daily eating (Acts 2:42, 46) 
• another eating, probably daily (otherwise how would it help the needy?), again taking place in the midst of a full-blown meal, probably at night-time, which also served as a "feed the needy" meal, with no mention of singing or giving, which Paul says wasn't really the Lord's Supper because they weren't waiting for one another before stuffing their own faces (1 Cor 11:17-34). 
• a hint of possibly weekly observance at night-time either on a Saturday or Sunday pre-midnight evening or on a Sunday or Monday post-midnight, pre-dawn morning as part of an all-nighter assembly, with no mention of singing or giving (Acts 20:7-12).

Some people also try to marry 1 Cor 16:2's reference to "the first day" as being indicative of the disciples meeting on this day, which may be true, but is not certain; another likely possibility is that Paul is referring to the Roman Market Day, when the population went grocery shopping, and when it would make sense to "lay by him in store" (putting in storage, not putting into a church treasury for paying the church salaries/bills) a portion of your funds, not for groceries, but for the year-long collection being made for the poor saints back in Jerusalem.

MacMullen (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1087739?seq=9#page_scan_tab_contents) writes about the Roman Market Days in Italy:

What is certain from the evidence, however, is the importance and completeness of the arrangements developed in this section of Italy for the exchange of goods between the rural population on the one hand, and urban and itinerant merchants on the other hand. Efficiency required that they be brought together in large numbers, whether once every seven, or eight, or fourteen, or thirty days, or less frequently still. To this end a variety of other purposes were adopted: assemblies of worship, spectacles and entertainments, elections, or assizes. We may assume throughout the empire such successful answers to the demands of commerce as can be seen so clearly on the map of Campania.

In other words, there were regular market days, presumably not just in Italy but throughout the empire, which were not only for buying groceries but also provided an opportunity for regular worship assemblies to arise.

Less authoritative, Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar#Nundinal_cycle) also speaks of the Roman Market Day:

The Romans of the Republic, like the Etruscans, used a "market week" of eight days, marked as A to H in the calendar. A nundinum was the market day; ... The nundinal cycle formed one rhythm of day-to-day Roman life; the market day was the day when country people would come to the city, and the day when city people would buy their eight days' worth of groceries. ... The nundinal cycle was eventually replaced by the modern seven-day week, which first came into use in Italy during the early imperial period, after the Julian calendar had come into effect in 45 BC. The system of nundinal letters was also adapted for the week. For a while, the week and the nundinal cycle coexisted, but by the time the week was officially adopted by Constantine in AD 321, the nundinal cycle had fallen out of use.

And as mentioned above, there is the assumption that the phrase "Lord's day" refers to the first day of the week, but also as mentioned, that's just an assumption, with no Biblical evidence whatsoever to support it, and in fact, is in contrast with the general Biblical usage of the Sabbath as being the "day of the Lord", as in Isa 58:13:

If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath,
from doing your pleasure on my holy day,
and call the Sabbath a delight
and the holy day of the Lord honorable;
if you honor it, not going your own ways,
or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly;