Return to the page directory
 

Neturei-Karta
 "Guardians of the City"
Return to the page directory

The word "Zion" is used in many ways through out the Bible. Originally used to refer to the fortress of the Jebusites, "Zion" it is also used as a name for the temple, the temple hill, the city of Jerusalem, the captive people of Judah, the land of Judah, the people of Israel as a whole and the nation of Israel. Although its definition may be indefinite, nothing is more volatile in our National consciousness or among Christians than the "ism" called, for better or worse, "Zionism." These two explosive areas are not independent of one another. In recent years, the powerful influence of those Christians called "fundamentalists" upon the Federal Government has turned from earlier disdain for the Nation of Israel to a virtual love affair. . This nearly obsessive preoccupation with "Zion" and all things Israel have to do with the "Doctrine of Last Things" – the end of the world, Parousia, the Second Coming of Jesus the Christ. Somehow, contemporary eschatology (the study of "end times") has wedded the two – the Nation of Israel and the Parousia.

The only thing absolutely certain in eschatology is that Jesus will return – everything else, including the role of Nation of Israel, is the subject of much human speculation. The Scriptures do tell us that there will be a "new heaven" and a "new earth" and that the Holy City, the "New Jerusalem" (one use of the term "Zion"), will come down out of heaven (Revelation 21:1-2). That should be enough reliability for the occurrence of this event for almost any Christian – although we seem to forget it is from "heaven down" rather than "earth up." It is also noteworthy that there will be no temple in this New Jerusalem, And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it (Revelation 21:22).

The passage quoted from Deuteronomy (30:3) does seem to lend itself to the interpretation of Zion as the equivalent of Israel. The Prophet Ezekiel (37:1-14) seemed to predict that the Jewish people would return to the land of Israel -- in two stages. Notice, however, the sequence, And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land. First the conversion, then the gathering (v. 14). Before the end can come, aren’t the people of Israel to hail Him, Jesus Christ, as blessed (Matthew 23:38-39; Luke 13:34-35)? The Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary on Deuteronomy 30 states that through the combined influences of the Word and the Spirit of God, Jews will be converted to the "faith of Jesus Christ as their Messiah." (Col 2:2); (Joh 11:51, 52), (Ro 11:1-36). Then " They will be recalled from all places of the dispersion to their own land and enjoy the highest prosperity." Matthew Henry’s Commentary states, "The Jewish nation shall in some future period, perhaps not very distant, be converted to the faith of Christ; and, many think, again settled in the land of Canaan….

National Zionism is selfish, anti-Semitic, because it condemns the Jews of the world who, like other heathens, have not accepted Christ. I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid (Romans 11:1) And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob (Romans 11:26), Today, Israel is in the land in unbelief. Before Parousia, the stage must be set for a great revival in the Nation of Israel with many, most, all Jews will come to Christ (Rom. 11:25-26). That must be the Christian definition of Zionism.

Return to the page directory
 

For as long as there have been cows to milk, the three-legged stool has been used as an analogy of security and stability. Christians, even those who never get closer to a cow than the refrigerator or café latte, can see some obvious applications – say in the trinity of the God-head. The milking stool illustration can also be used to help us remember a way to "try the spirits" John speaks of in the above Scripture. This warning about false prophets and false teachers appears about seven times in the New Testament. It was a concern of Jesus, Peter and John and the virulence such is taken as a sign of the End Times. Matthew 7:15 records a particularly strong warning Jesus gave to the saints, Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. Surely it is coincidental that John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible, a suggests "sheep’s clothing" was referring, "a garment which reached to the feet, and was made of the wool of sheep" that "deceivers and profane men" used to fool people into believing they were righteous.

How are we to know whether the spirits are of God? It isn’t to be found in the "church." Church doctrine isn’t any indication as witnessed by Jimmy Jones’ "People’s Temple." Anyone can start a "church," found a "ministry or start a mission." The recent scandals rocking the Roman Catholic Church and the ordination of an overtly gay bishop in the Episcopalian church only emphasize how much so many have strayed from the Truth. The answer isn’t a matter of reasoning or someone’s teaching for that matter. It isn’t the degrees one has earned or the seminary one attended. It is a matter of Record – Scriptural. Interestingly, the Record tells us there are three legs to that "sure and certain knowledge."

First the Holy Spirit. Jesus told His disciples, And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth (John 14:16-17). John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible proclaims the Holy Spirit "is the dictator of the Scriptures of truth, who leads men into the truths of the Gospel." In similar fashion, John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible states the Holy Spirit is, "The Spirit of truth - Who has, reveals, testifies, and defends the truth as it is in Jesus." He is our first line of defense against false teachers and false doctrines.

Second is the Word. Jesus does not leave us to our own devices on our journey of discovery of the Truth, nor does he leave us solely in the hands of other men. Under those pretentious flowing robes, which reach the feet, is a pair of trousers (hopefully). Those trousers must be put on one leg at a time just like every other mortal must do – keeping one leg at all times planted on the ground. Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology states, "in light of the fact that every doctrine believed by the church is in turn authorized by appeal to Holy Scripture (theological proposals are grounded "according to the Scriptures," in the words of the creed), it is no exaggeration to say that the entire structure of Christian theology stands or falls by the authority of Scripture." And, again from Baker’s Dictionary, "As Calvin puts it, ‘For as God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men's hearts before it is scaled by the inward testimony of the Spirit.’

Third, the "communion of saints." We usually hear Matthew 18:19, Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven used in the context of meeting personal needs. Justifiable, but the strength of commonality is much more. The operative word is anything, and that would include discerning the truth. Indeed, regarding His promise as only applicable to personal problems deprives us of much strength and direction.

Not one or two of these together, but the three in concert. Just like the proverbial stool, the absence of one of the ingredients (legs) upsets the pale of Truth. A proposition must pass all three tests.

Return to the page directory
 

Give, and It Shall Be Given Unto You
Return to the page directory

What about this promise found in the Book of Luke? Well, first of all, within the context of asking for money, this seems very much like attempting to bribe God. "I’ll put money in the offering (His money, by all accounts.) with the understanding that you will give me a considerable return on my investment." What else could that possibly be called – a "kickback?" Giving with the expectation of a return isn’t exactly what Christ had in mind either. At least that’s what is recorded in Luke, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee (Luke 14:12). Is giving to "charity" in order to avoid paying income taxes an acceptable motivation?

And notice the passage says shall men give into your bosom, not God. If this excerpt intended to tells us to make oblations to the "brick-and-mortar" church, then is it also saying the church will see to our needs when we are destitute? Matthew Henry’ Commentary states, "If we in a right manner give to others when they need, God will incline the hearts of others to give to us when we need, and to give liberally." This passage is not telling us to give to the "church" but to those in need? Remember that there were no church buildings for Christian worship any more than there was a clergy, a professional staff or denominations. Christ could not have meant for us to give to this kind of "church" because it did not exist. The first century "church," those assemblies, those congregations, such as to whom Paul wrote his epistles did not even exist during Christ’s earthly ministry. He could not have been referring to them. He could not have been saying give to help support the "church" because it did not exist. Those "home-centered" congregations Paul addressed were after His Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension. On the other hand, the "church" as overwhelmingly used in the New Testament did refer to our brothers and sisters in Christ. If we give to those of our brothers and sisters in need (Not to the exclusion of others.) we will be abundantly repaid in our time of need? It deals with charity toward others, not tithing to support the operating budget of an organization.

The Fourfold Gospel Commentary even suggests that the passage is not an assurance or our material giving will resulting in receiving in kind. "It rather means that we shall receive an equivalent in joy and in that blessedness which Jesus meant when he said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).’" As recorded in Luke 6:37, the verse just before, Jesus tells us, Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven. It is not coincidental that He uses much similar language in Matthew 7:2, For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. No one would think of taking this passage and converting it in some manner, for some reason, into a command that we are not to judge the church. Appropriately, this passage, with similar language, is translated into our relationships with others. Why, then, are we so bent on insisting what He said in Luke justifies tithing? Yet, we do.

Isn’t it more sensible, within the context of His teachings, to believe He was, through teaching His disciples, giving us lessons on living? After all, what is the second great commandment He gave, to support the "church" with tithes and offerings? In what other context does He tells us to do that? If there aren’t any, then to interpret this on passage in such a way hardly seems justifiable. Our founding fathers helped one another in their time of need. There were "barn raisings" in which the entire community participated. Who needs a caterer for a pot-luck supper and who needs a janitor if everyone pitches in and helps get ready for and clean up after we’ve gotten together at your house for a Wednesday night Bible study and fellowship? It isn’t that we shouldn’t support the "church," but it is a matter of what constitutes the church we are supporting. The Samaritan didn’t just give the destitute stranger a voucher for a meal, he looked after all his needs. Who then more closely follows the relational paradigm given by Christ, such a modern-day Samaritan or one who contributes to the church’s current building fund and shuns the poor about him?

Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Matthew 25:40

Return to the page directory
 

For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

Romans 7:9
Return to the page directory

What is Paul saying to the saints in Rome with this passage? John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible suggests that he was noting the way he and other Jews regarded the law gave to it an emphasis on superficial actions rather than our inward spirit and thoughts. "It had not as yet entered into his heart and conscience." He thought himself holy, righteous and perfect because of his outward observances. Perhaps we are not unlike that Paul who wttthtas "alive." Maybe it is that superficiality in the Christian community deluding us into the full extent of our sinful nature and, consequently, the minimization for the constant need for retpentance and Jesus’ intervention before the Throne. When he saw himself as the sinful person we all are, it came into his heart, he said "sin revived, and I died."

In Matthew 5:48, Jesus said, Be ye therefore evenFa s tt contradiction tent in Romans 7:9. Some Christians think this means such perfection is possible in this life, others are convinced they have achieved it. Of course we are to lead a life without sin or perhaps, better said, we should strive toward perfection. As contradictory as it first may seem, there are Scriptures supporting both contentions. Paul writes that we all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God Romans 3:23

Return to the page directory
 

An Empty Belly and Charity

For it pleased those from Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution
for the poor among the saints who are in Jerusalem. Romans 15:26

Return to the page directory

How often are we admonished from the pulpit to emulate the generosity of the church at Rome and other First Century churches? We are reminded that when things are "right" in the "church," giving is not a problem. Often this passage from Romans is cited as Scriptural evidence that we should give now as they did then. But, unless we are fully apprised of the nature of the "church" about which Paul was writing and the purpose for which and for whom the giving was intended, we may be in the presence of those of whom Paul wrote, For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple Romans 16:18.

First, to the nature of the "church" of Paul’s day. It was not, as now, a building or an organization. It was not a "ministry" or a so-called "mission." It was people, brothers and sisters in the faith, united by their accepting of Jesus the Christ as their Lord and Savior. It was not priests, pastors, ministers, elders, vicars, pastors or bishops – ordained, commissioned or otherwise. It was those filled with the Holy Spirit exercising their special gifts toward the edification of one another.

The "church," the body of believers, (the lip-service we give to the Body of Christ) most often met in one another’s homes. That is testified to in the very letter under consideration. In Romans 16:23 we read, Gaius, my host of the whole church greet you. They did meet in synagogue and even in the Temple on occasion. However, there is no mention in the New Testament that they ever had permanent facilities in which the routinely met. Thus the certain contribution to which Paul alludes was not for servicing the mortgage or maintaining the facilities. Instead, it went to take care of the needs of the widows, orphans and strangers in their midst – the dispossessed.

Therefore, the giving was not to build and maintain a meaningless and empty structure. It was not to pay Paul’s salary and living expenses and provide him with a full-time professional support staff – you know those to write his letters, arrange his itinerary, and keep track of his appointments schedule his TV appearances and set up his fund-raising dinners with "big hitters." The giving Paul speaks of was not used to pay his medical expenses and contribute toward his retirement fund. It was used to feed, clothe and house the saints who were in dire need.

There are many "worthwhile" (comparatively speaking) "ministries" within Christianity today that seek to provide for the needy and hungry in our own Nation as well as around the world. As commendable as they are, because of their very nature they detract from those whom they purport to serve. In simple terms, however well intended the organization might be, they incur "operating expenses," "overhead." There are mortgages, leases, rents to be paid for the collection and distribution centers. More expenses associated with the distribution of those resources collected. In its television advertisements to bolster giving, one noteworthy charitable organization shows a long line of semi-tractor trailer trucks crossing a bridge presumable on their way to feed some struggling persons in a distant county or state. And there’s the problem – money for creating the ads, for television time, for the trucks and the fuel to run them. Every dollar spent there is improperly spent. Every gallon of fuel that goes into the tank of one of those trucks takes a gallon of milk from a hungry belly – they both cost about the same.

If everything was "right" within the "church," If we modern Christians were given to understand the simplest of Christ’s teachings love thy neighbor; if we were shown the full implication of His exhortation take up his cross and follow me, not to mention sell all you have and give to the poor indeed giving would not be a problem. We would not see the hunger and hurting in our own communities. Instead of paying to send a semi-tractor trailer truck half way across the Nation, we’d be carrying dinner and our used clothes across the street to our neighbor in need. We’d pay their living expenses and medical bills.

If we comprehended whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me we’d be compassionate to the street bum who dares to cross our path and foul our view as we enter our sacred temple grounds to worship the Lord. "Teach them to fish," "get a job," "anyone who wants to work can find a job!" If you can dream it you can do it!" Things are not right with the church and what giving there happens to be, more than likely goes to their own "bellies."

Return to the page directory
 

"On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said,
`Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you. Luke 10:35

Imagine your loved ones gathered around the gifts at the bottom of the tree this Christmas. All eagerly jump in opening gift after gift. All the gifts are opened except a pile around one. "Come on," they clamored, "we’re waiting for you to open your gifts." "Oh, these aren’t mine," she exclaimed, "these are for you. I have waited until I see what I get from you before I decide what I will give to you in return" whereupon she proceeded to hand out the gifts she had picked for each of the others based on what they gave her. Is this the true spirit of Christmas? Recently, a television personality told a story of a rich man who died and upon entering was accompanied to his heavenly home by Peter himself. On the way, they passed the mansion of his manservant. "My," the rich man exclaimed, "is that James house?" "It is," replied Peter as he continued on. Shortly they passed the palace of the rich man’s maid. "This can’t be Helen’s Palace, she was only my maid," he exclaimed. "It is," and they continued on. Finally, they came to a hovel, a shack and Peter motioned the rich man on. "This is your home," he said. "This can’t be! There must be some mistake!" "Well," replied Peter, "we really did the very best with what you sent ahead." Is this the true depth of God’s love for us?

How many people keep a record of what they received from others on previous Christmases using that as to determine future gifts? Is Christmas giving an investment? Instead of making mankind dutiful, worshipful, adoring robotic sycophants, he gave us intelligence and a will. Does it stand to reason, therefore, that He would be impressed with giving based solely on the expectation of a return on the investment? Do we suppose He is duped by such insincerity? What would our reaction be should we discover a "friend’s" Christmas list? While our level of gifting toward this person might increase, would our level of respect, admiration and affection take the same turn?

In Deuteronomy 15: 11, the Lord spoke to the children of Israel saying, For the poor will never cease {to be} in the land; therefore I command you, saying, 'You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land. Do we obey this command out of fear and with an expectation of reward? In Matthew 19:21 Jesus told the rich man to sell his possessions and give the proceeds to the poor, but clarification and is that to be translated as an investment for the man or an extension of "laying up treasures" (Matthew 6:20)and where they are is where our heart is?" (Luke 12:34) Is it possible that what He is saying to us is that "negative holiness" is not enough – don’t steal, don’t hurt? In Matthew 6:2 Jesus said, So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. We know what that "reward in full" will be. But just because we make out our checks, give our donations and "tithe" in secret, if our motives are insincere, whom have we fooled? Paul said, And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing. (1Corinthians 13:3). Isn’t that the heart of the matter of giving (pun intended)? Where do compassion, sympathy and gratitude fit into the ordinary picture of giving? Where should they?

Bribery is defined by the Encyclopaedia Britannica as the act of promising, giving, receiving, or agreeing to receive money or some other item of value with the corrupt aim of influencing a public official in the discharge of his official duties. How much is giving presented to us as a thinly veiled attempt to influence God in the discharge of His official duties? We have compounded our moral dilemma with attempted bribery. The trustworthiness of such utterances is further suspect because of the transparent motivation from the sermons. Without necessarily saying who or what the object of our giving should be, it is understood that the target is the local church. The implication is that, like the miserly person with her gifts, God will reward us in kind. That is clearly the case of the story told from the pulpit of the rich man finding he had inherited a hovel in heaven. Obviously, at least the minister hopes it is, if he had been more generous in his giving to the "church" his residence in heaven would have been more palatial. Are we to believe the Samaritan acted out of some self-serving motivation? What about Jesus’ sacrificial giving?

Return to the page directory
 

THE TEMPLE AND THE CHURCH
Return to the page directory

And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple Acts 2:46

Much has been made of the Scriptural fact that Jesus taught in the Temple at Jerusalem as did the Apostles in the first century church. Yes, we do have to specify the one at Jerusalem because King Jeroboam built shrines in the city of Dan and Bethel in the Northern Kingdom of "Israel" (1Kings 12:28-33.) Remember, centuries before Jesus ministry, the former Nation of Israel divided in civil war and had been conquered, several times. Actually, the Temple of His day was the third in a succession starting with Solomon’s then Zerubbabel’s and Herod’s on the same site. Missing was the Ark and other sacred elements.

Although there is doubt as to the actual size of a "cubit" (the measurement of the time) in today’s feet and inches, some researchers suggest that the Temple Compound was trapezoidal in shape that covered almost a square mile. According to these sources, as many as 210,000 could be present in the larger, "Gentile" court at one time. In comparison, the Roman Coliseum only seated between 50,000 and 70,000 people. This is important, because some contemporary theologians make the argument that the "church" at Jerusalem met in the Temple with its numbers variously estimated to be somewhere between 3,000 to 60,000– quite a spread; obviously some room for different interpretations here as well. Actually, it is doubtful that these converted Jews would be allowed to meet in the temple as the KJV suggests because they were not priests and only priests could enter into the Temple. Besides, the Temple proper was relatively small and could not have accommodated a crowd of any size at all. Thirdly, they would have been excluded because of their conversion leaving them to gather in the "Court of Gentiles." In fact, the NIV may just be more accurate on this account suggesting they met "in the temple courts." Peter and John’s healing of the of the lame man (Acts 3:2,10) took place at the Beautiful Gate. Most authorities believe it separated the Court of Gentiles from the second level of courts, the "Court of Women."

Now, they could have met in this outer court because non-Jews could enter, but were prohibited from any of the other courts and certainly not in the Temple. This court was large enough to handle even the 60,000 some say belonged to the "church" at that time. Unfortunately, its design was not that of the Coliseum and it is doubtful the acoustics were very good either. Certainly, if we wish to envision a united body of worshippers focusing on the preaching of one or more of the Apostles as we see in today’s "mega-churches," we would be disillusioned. Right in the center of this "court" was the walled Court of Women then the walled Court of Men and on even higher ground was the impressive two story Temple building rising some 150 feet high. Even those of us accustomed to looking around raised TV camera platforms, pillars and posts would find these obstructions imposing. Further, since Jewish women could only go as far as the Court of Women that surrounded the Court of Men and the Temple proper, and we are told women were members of the "church," the only place they could have met with men would have been in the outermost court. Finally, the Temple compound, particularly the outer court, could not have been reserved for church services meaning that the average gentile tourist would have been free to wander about at will. The merchants Jesus drove out of this very court had, undoubtedly, returned and would have been hawking their wares for the Jews on their way into the inner recesses for worship. All in all, an assemblage of Christians of any size at all would have been awkward.

We must divorce the idea of the Christian church from the old idea of the Temple. First because, "the temple was a creature of the Law, while the church is the Body of Christ." He destroyed the exclusivity of Temple worship. The significance veil being rent at His Crucifixion (Matthew 27:51) was not restricted to separating the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place. Figuratively and spiritually, it threw open the Temple doors and knocked the gates of the courts off their hinges. Christians then were as free then to worship in the Temple (being permitted to do so) as Christians today are free to worship at Yosemite. We don’t need a temple, we don’t need a church, we don’t even need a building. All we need is just two of us gathered in worship of Him. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them (Matthew 18:20.) What more magnificent structure could we possibly pray for?

and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart Acts 2:46

Return to the page directory
 

συναγωγή
Synagogue
Return to the page directory

It its not an exaggeration to say that no other institution has more affected Christianity than the synagogue. First, it undoubtedly played a decisive role in preserving the Jewish religion because it was the only place of worship during the Exile/dispersion of the Jewish people. According to Rabbi Amy Scheinerman "They faced an unprecedented religious crisis: Exiled from their homeland and unable to offer sacrifices to God, since offering could only be made in the central sanctuary in Jerusalem, the Jews in Babylon wrestled with whether their covenant with God was still operative… "By the first century, synagogues emerge as the central institution of Jewish life once the Temple is destroyed…They became a place where study, worship, meeting, celebration, and civic meetings take place."

A second reason for the influence of the synagogue on Christianity is explained by that fact that some have described it as the "womb of Christianity" claiming that it is the basic model for the Christian church organization. The historian Robert E. Walsh goes so far as to suggest, "Paul was not given his ecclesiology in a vacuum. The Lord used the synagogue and its structure after which to pattern the Pauline local assembly." There was what some refer to as a "college of elders," (Luke 7:3) elected by the members of the synagogue." (Luke 8:41,49; 13:14; Acts 18:8,17) which he claims was the origin of the "consistory found in many Christian churches can be seen in the Synagogue."

We are familiar with the synagogue’s Rabbis and some would like to equate that office to our "minister" or "pastor. But, he is/was not a minister/pastor or priest, in either the Jewish or Christian sense of these words. Outside of these two instances (college of elders and Rabbis), the similarity between synagogue and church stops. We’d be hard pressed to find a correlation to the prominent position the Chazzan or "Cantor" played in the synagogue unless we want to press our choir directors into service to preserve the illusion. Although we often have an assistant it would really be stretching the point to suggest the synagogue’s "Reader" was the prototype for that function in the same way, it would be "Receivers and Distributors of Alms" were the original deacons. Even so, we’d be hard pressed to find a "Minister," the one who looked after the law and furniture, in Christian churches. And where are the, "Men of Leisure" consisting of ten men who did not work but were appointed in order that the meeting could go on. The Beth Tikvah Synagogue’s by-laws provide an excellent example of a contemporary synagogue’s organization. A more detailed account shows that the "officers" of the synagogue really were not the authors of Christian church organization. Paul may not have been given his ecclesiology in a vacuum. But, if the synagogue was his model, he was very selective in what he kept and discarded. Remember that there was no Law, prophecy or command sanctioning the creation of the synagogue. It was an "extra legal entity."

Of course in all of this speculation is the assumption that there was intended or that there had to be an official organization of the church – an assumption unfounded in any of Christ’s teachings. Something happened between the community of saints we find shortly after the the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1),through the actions of the apostles surrounding the events recorded in Acts 15) and the installation of Pope St. Linus in circa AD 64-76 (see 2 Timothy 4:21). It happened rather quickly and its impact upon Christianity cannot be overstated. Paul, with his "rabbinical" training may have been responsible. Whatever the cause, the "People of the Way," in very short order were transformed into the Christian religion.

In much the same way the Lord uses broken human vessels in His work, He may have used the synagogue to preserve Judaism from total extinction. He may be using the "Church" in the same manner. But, as sinful human nature is not a model to be imitated, there is nothing in either Covenant recommending the synagogue as the archetype for modern church organization. It existed without Scriptural authorization.

Return to the page directory
 

Oh Lord My God
He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: Ecclesiastes 3 3:11
Return to the page directory

TRUE RICHES Or Is 10% Really Enough?
If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon,
who will commit to your trust the true riches? Luke 16:11
Return to the page directory

"You can't take it with you, but you can send it on ahead" is the opinion of the author of The Treasure Principle, Randy Alcorn. He uses verses from Matthew 6:19-20 to bolster his argument with Scripture. Here, Christ is discouraging us from being worldly and greedy. Greed is defined as "excessive or reprehensible acquisitiveness – seeking more than one’s proper share. He continues "God owns everything." Who could disagree? God created everything; He is Lord over all. Alcorn states, "I’m His money manager. What I call my money is really His. The question is, what does He want me to do with His money?" "We'll each part with our money." He writes, "The only question is when. Jesus warns us not to store up treasures on earth, not because it's wrong, but because it's stupid - earthly treasure will not last." His six principles of how "To become a joyful giver does nothing to relieve the concern. "We need to embrace: (1) God owns everything. I'm His money manager. (2) My heart always goes where I put God's money. (3) Heaven, not earth, is my home. (4) I should live not for the dot (our brief life on earth today), but for the line (our eternal life in heaven soon). (5) Giving is the only antidote to materialism. (6) God prospers me not to raise my standard of living, but to raise my standard of giving." He continues, "Jesus commands us to store up treasures in heaven, not simply because it's right, but because it's smart - heaven is the only place our treasures will last!"

While he has valuable points, he raises some fundamental issues about our stewardship. Is he, like so many other writers and preachers, restricting God’s giftedness to our money? Are our "treasures," really limited to just money? Is our "giving" really confined to the financial support of a church? Should I expect a return on my "investment?" Is that a good motive for my giving; my stewardship? Is a tithe of 10% really all we "owe?" At best this seems like we’re getting off cheap. At worst it just seems cheap.

None of the "Spiritual Gifts" found in Paul’s writings has anything to do with money, but they all are for the purpose of complimenting the Body of Christ. Aren’t such "treasures" as wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, prophecy and discernment of at least equal value to the "church" as one’s checkbook? And what about the "Fruit of the Spirit," love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control? Aren’t they of some use to God in spreading the Word? Aren’t the gifts and fruits of the Spirit just as much treasure and riches as money?

This treasure we are supposed to be able to send ahead, of what sort is it? Does anyone suppose it is bank accounts, stock portfolios, fine clothing, stately mansions, expensive SUV’s or Mediterranean cruises on the QE2? Aren’t these exactly the sort of things Christ was warning us against? Are we to believe that they are OK in heaven, that they won’t be any less of a distraction there just because moths won’t eat, rust destroy or thieves steal them? (Matthew 6:19) The territory of Jabez; the overflowing cup of Malachi 3:10 speak directly to temporal things and how God will expand one and abundantly reward the bringing of one’s tithes to the storehouse in the other. We are also told, without qualification, that we can serve just one master, temporal things or God. The widow, remember, was so highly praised by Jesus because she gave far more than the allotted amount. Which master did she serve.

Can giving be an excuse for collecting? Can we so interpret, For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: Luke 12:48, in such a way that the millions we give is an excuse for our billions? Should Bill Gates, motivated by the idea that he is sending it ahead where it will expand, multiply and overflow his cup, give 10% of his fortune (which would be an enormous sum) to his local church, will his heavenly reward be greater than the widow on Social Security who can’t afford a 10% tithe but volunteers many hours a week at the same church?

When a Pharisee attempting to ensnare Jesus asked which was the greatest of all commandments, he was referring to the "whole body of the law;" the Moral, Ceremonial and the Civil or Political Law, not just as is frequently thought that he was meaning the Ten Commandments. And, at another time, Jesus had said He came to fulfill all of the law, still to the Pharisee He replied, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind Matthew 22:37. Isn’t that saying we are a bit more than His "money managers" and that we owe a lot more than just 10% of our mammon?

Return to the page directory
 

Where Only the Perfect Dare to Tread
Salute every saint in Christ Jesus. The brethren which are with me greet you.
Philippians 4:21
Return to the page directory

Some say that Christians are noted for "shooting their wounded." They say It’s as though we had a "zero tolerance policy" for the shortcomings of one another. That it is the shortcomings of others must be emphasized, because when it comes time to account for ourselves, they point out, we evoke the plea that "nobody’s perfect," and claim the cleansing blood of Jesus in our defense. Besides, we only have occasional lapses of a minor nature. Instead of the "church" being a "hospital for sinners," more often it resembles a battlefield of gossip and "one-upmanship." Sunday morning is more like a barnyard of chickens maintaining their place in the pecking order rather than a one of respite from a hectic world.

True or not we Christians are increasingly facing another dilemma in our Sunday morning service – impersonality. This may have to do with urban living or our cultural life-styles that are certainly impersonal. Some would like to attribute it to the massive "mega-churches" springing up all over the country, but the "mega-church" may be an effect as much as it is a cause. As a matter of fact, the Barna Research Group reports that "60% of Protestant churches have 100 or fewer adults on a typical weekend." Not exactly in the "mega" range. While the impersonality of arena, stadium-sized churches is made painfully obvious by the traffic jams and the bumping and shoving crowds as they enter and exit these "places of worship," impersonality also invades the smaller, more typical congregation. It is an interesting paradox. The "mega-church" is really incapable of fostering personal relationships among their members. The small churches, on the other hand, are confronted with a contradiction within a paradox limiting such relationships. The same group, Barna, notes that those attending small churches are "less likely to be born again, less likely to believe in salvation by grace alone (i.e., not by good deeds), and less likely to have an orthodox view of God (i.e., holy, creator, ruler of the universe, alive today)." Whatever the cause, the consequence is about the same, we rarely relate to one another, barely speaking to those around us let alone as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Yet, as we congregate, those around us are truly our brothers and sisters. We are with the members of our most beloved family. And we are told to, love one another with a pure heart fervently 1 Peter 1:22. That same verse from Peter says we are to have an, unfeigned love of the brethren. "Unfeigned" means that love must be without pretence, not hypocritical, but authentic, sincere and genuine. In John13:34 Jesus said, A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another In the following verse He told His disciples that by loving our brothers and sisters shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another (v. 35). That same message is repeated in John 15:12 and 15:17. It is essential. Some call this canon "a badge of fellowship."

Maybe we take Matthew 5:46 too literally For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? causing us to believe we must not love one another. Surely not. A crucial word is implied in His admonition – only! If we only love those who love us. We act as though this passage forbids us from loving our brothers and sisters in Christ. It, most decidedly does not do that at all. Our love isn’t to stop with only with those who love (or should) us, but it surely must begin there.

We have been rigorously and correctly taught that Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (Matthew 22:39) as a commandment second only to loving God. It has been just as rigorously taught that our "neighbor" is everyone – that God wants everyone to be saved. Perhaps in our zeal to do so, our evangelism has put us in the precarious position of ignoring that we are also told, If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? (1 John 4:20). So, we set about "loving" the world while shunning our brothers and sisters in the faith. We are the light of the world; (Matthew 5:14); we are to let our light so shine before men (v.16); we are to begin that illumination with our Christian family in our Christian houses of worship. How can we expect to influence a non-believing world of our loving God when the lamp of love is missing from the window of our church home? If from that home all they see is the same cool aloofness, the same gossiping, pushing and shoving they know in their secular world, what would possibly persuade them to admire us let alone join our "fellowship?"
 

Return to the page directory
 

The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. Matthew 10:24
Return to the page directory

In many versions of the Bible, the words of Jesus are in red to distinguish His words from those of others. So it is with Jesus’ words found in Matthew 10:24. This article is intended to raise some questions about the origins of some of our Christian beliefs and practices. Hopefully, the answers to those questions will be sufficiently transparent as to make the questions rhetorical. Actually, Jesus is saying that a student should not presume to know more than his teacher. Our expectation is that we agree He is our great teacher and that every other scholar, writer, theologian, church official disciple is His student.

Having said that, optimistically perhaps, we can agree that the "church fathers," men such as Augustine, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Polycarp and Tertelluian who contributed much to what we believe should be honored for their efforts and contributions. From them emerged the foundations of our liturgy. Augustine championed the belief that salvation is the exclusive work of the Holy Spirit. Ignatius considered the "clerical class" a "necessary medium" for ordinary Christians to access God. "Whoever is within the sanctuary," he wrote, "is pure, but he who is outside of the sanctuary is not pure." Tertelluian, is principally responsible for our contemporary view of the Trinity. Gradually the view solidified that the Lord’s Supper and baptism as rites that could be performed only by an accredited minister. In the year 325, three hundred and twelve bishops gathered in what has become known as the Council of Nicea to find a way to describe exactly who Jesus was. Athanasius, a Roman Catholic theologian was the primary author of the Nicene Creed. Some consider him the principle influence in creating the list of writings that make up our New Testament. Zacharias Ursinus was the principle author of the Heidelberg Catechism. The Apostles Creed, previously known as "The Old Roman Creed." was probably written by an abbott named Pirminius.

Although we may not agree with everything said and written we can also acknowledge that in more recent history many Christian theologians must be thanked for their contributions to our system of beliefs. John Wycliffe challenged the authority of the pope and insisted that the Bible instead of the pope was our sole authority. He also rejected the Church’s teachings on purgatory, the sale of indulgences, and the doctrine of transubstantiation. John Hus stressed the role of the Bible as authority in the church, and made preaching the bible of central importance in church services. Certainly the contributions of Luther and Calvin cannot be overstated. Many "synods," "councils" and conferences of leading Christian scholars and theologians also contributed to our modern Christianity. In many ways, the life and works of (Saint) Thomas Aquinas summarizes man’s attempt to expound upon, defend and clarify the Word of God. It was he who first expressed the notion that through faith and reason a "totality of truth" could be achieved because both are from God and there can be no essential contradiction between them. Reason, he believed, could lead us to great spiritual truths and could help us those truths we accept on faith.

Let us not forget that after three years of tutelage, right up to His ascension, the disciples kept asking, "Lord, are you going to free Israel now and restore our kingdom?" (Acts 1:6) They, like the rest of us were subject to human limitations and mistakes. Jesus thanked God, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes (Luke 10:21). Why did God do that? Boastfulness, arrogance and pride are the answers. Paul recognized our limitations God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise 1 Corinthians 1:27. Our "intellectual" activities need to be to reflect, ponder and emulate. How closely they do is the measure of their worth. The importance and truth of human teachings and writings can only be measured in comparison with His teachings, not the author’s fame, the size of his following or where he is on the "best seller" list. Who, after all is our teacher and our mentor? And Jesus said, I will pray to the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him (John 14:16-17). Those Bibles using "red letters" continue in this way, "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words:" (v.23). The reader cannot possibly mistake when John it is writing and Jesus is speaking. Perhaps there is something to be said for making such distinctions. Perhaps it is time to reassess some of our beliefs and liturgy. And, what better advice to a preacher or a writer than to, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost. (Mark 13:11)

Return to the page directory
 

IT TOOK TWO
(And it still wasn’t enough)
And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD,
and the other lot for the scapegoat. Leviticus 16:8
Return to the page directory

Sacrifices, blood sacrifices, were a basic part of ancient Judaism. None, however, more basic or sacred than those in connection with the Day of Atonement when the sacrifice was to pay for their sins. It was on the tenth day of the seventh month of every year. The High Priest, Aaron in the early days, first sacrificed a bull to cleanse himself then, he selected two goats one to be sacrificed and one, the scapegoat, to be sent into the wilderness.

Now, this was to take place in perpetuity since we were/are in a perpetual condition of sinfulness. One might wonder where/if the sacrifices are being made today since perpetuity is presumably on going – at least sin is. But, then, there are so many edicts and directives that have fallen by the wayside, it is hard to keep track of them all. Isn’t it fortunate that we still maintain the institution of tithing. Otherwise, how would churches manage to finance their budgets?

One day a year set aside to pay for our collective sins doesn’t sound like such a bad arrangement either unless one might be the bull or the unfortunate goat sacrifice. What a blessing, actually, that one day out of three-hundred-sixty-five days we could all get together and watch the ceremonial sacrifices. Then, we could watch the "azazel" (sacrificial goat) being burdened with all of our sins and driven out of town. That must have been a relief.

We are told that, "Throughout the Old Testament, the holiness of God is an object of dread. When an ancient Israelite expressed terror at being in the presence of God (e.g., Judges 6:22-23; Isa 6:5), that attitude was no aberration. It arose from a universal conviction that no one could stand before the holiness of God. The only escape was for propitiation to be made." We no longer practice animal sacrifices as a way of appeasing God. We no longer have such dread of Him. While all the sacrifices have been embraced in the one great, permanent and final sacrifice (as they were all temporary) of our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ on the cross, it is difficult to comprehend the modern Christian attitude of the approachability of God. You see, it wasn’t God who was dreaded, it was His "holiness." And, perhaps, it wasn’t His holiness that was so much dreaded as the glare it placed upon the very best of our behavior, desires and wishes which were described as "filthy rags."

Dread means to regard with awe. God is "awful" – "our God is an ‘awesome God." Doesn’t it seem that would make almost anyone "reluctant the meet Him face to face?" "Holy," according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, means, "exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness." exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness. If we were to come into the presence of absolutely perfect goodness and righteousness, wouldn’t the contrast between that and ours be absolutely dreadful? Maybe we should revisit the concept of a God who is dreadful in His incomprehensible perfection. Maybe we should reconsider those words spoken to Moses, put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. Exodus 3:5

We need not slaughter a bull to "draw nigh" unto God in our worship. Jesus ended the need to slaughter a goat as temporary propitiation for our sins or drive one into the wilderness. But, in our modern view of God, maybe something very important has been lost. Is it possible that we have lowered God to our level, made Him just a bit too human in our zeal to be "relational" with Him? Because we don’t have to go to church once a year to witness modern priests making such sacrifices in the Holy of Holies, is it possible we think our nature is less offensive to God than that of the people of ancient times was? Have we forgotten or do we ignore that we have not changed any more than God. What has changed isn’t that we have stopped sinning. We are every bit as much as the worst reprobate one could find on the Tabernacle grounds. What has changed has nothing to do with us, it has everything to do with Jesus. Our God is still awesome and, lest we appear completely foolish, we had better well dread His presence without our High Priest and our intercessor. He lives, He lives as our mediator sitting at the right-hand of God. He is the "officer in charge of assuring God does not see our totally, wholly unworthy selves. It took more than two goats to assure such pardon for us. Lest we forget our total depravity and should we forget, do we also lose the full horror of His sacrifice on the cross?

Return to the page directory
 

Directed by the Spirit or How Strong is Our Faith
And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you:
but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be endued with the power from on high Luke 24:49
Return to the page directory

With these words, Jesus instructed His disciples to do nothing without the presence, the power, and the direction of the Holy Spirit. God even sent the Holy Spirit to confirm Jesus’ ministry, and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him (Matthew 3:16). The Holy Spirit was involved with the beginning of creation (Genesis 1:2). He empowered the great figures in the Old Testament acting upon Gideon (Judges 6:34) and Samson (Judges 14:6) for example. In striking contrast, the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul (1 Samuel 16:14).

If we feel the Holy Spirit has directed us into a "ministry," how much faith do we have that, being so directed, He will "smooth the way," open doors, overcome obstacles, provide the skills, material and financial resources necessary for us to successfully fulfill His calling? We hear a great deal about the "calling" then nothing more but the needs and obstacles. We don’t appear to believe that if it is indeed His will we will not fail, we cannot fail, because He does not fail. Our human inclinations take over and the old saw about "let go and let God" is left in the dust.

Contemporary Christian theologians appear to believe in others paying for their ministry. What we hear from the visionaries, just after the prophetic understanding of their mission, is the plea for others to finance that vision. For example, every nationally recognized "ministry" with a website prominently displays an appeal/method for "online donations." The only notable exception found is that of Bill Hybels. A number of years ago, a "minister" proclaimed he was the luckiest man alive because other people paid for his dreams. Is that Scriptural? We aren’t just "thrown fleece," but heavy-handed, guilt ridden, appeals to support their ministry in the name of a presumably Biblically based tithing obligation. Is that really the nature and intent of tithing? Is that really the nature and intent of tithing? If so, isn’t it strange that "tithe," and "tithing" aren’t mentioned in this context in all of the New Testament?

Are the only worthy missions those to "far away places with strange sounding names" and the only deserving projects 20,000-seat cathedral/auditoriums? The idea of "mass" media" speaks for itself. Like to "mega-churches used as sound stages for their media productions, they are impersonal. Since when is Christianity impersonal? Is sitting in a huge auditorium with thousands of strangers listening to a person speak at such a distance as only to be seen on massive television monitors an accurate representation of the Biblical church? Does it rightly portray Jesus’ ministry? He told us to go forth and make disciples. He did not tell us to go forth and build churches. Where did He say that this or that superstar was to save the world?

There is a deeper issue. Doesn’t Jesus tell us He will care for us? Isn’t that the lesson of the lilies of the field found in Matthew 6:28 and Luke 12:27? Does He not ask what we can do to help ourselves? Isn’t that Scriptural? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? (Matthew 6:27) Isn’t that found in the Bible? If we do our part, place our full trust in God won’t He see to it that we do not lack for anything. Isn’t that what these passages are saying to us? If "churches," "ministries" and "missions" operate under a different set of rules, where is it found in the Bible that they do?

If others presume upon us to support their heavenly cause, aren’t they taking away, redirecting the resources that have been provided for our ministry? Who is to dream dreams and see visions (Acts 2:17), just popes and preachers? There are no restrictions to be found in the Bible on who will prophesy, who will dream dreams or see visions among the Followers of the Way. Then, where do Scriptures tell us to subrogate our ministry for that of others? Where do our divinely appointed missions fit in? We, you, have no ministry? Consider 1 Peter 2:5, 2:9 as an empowerment for ministry. How is it restricted? Does the royal priesthood, the holy nation Peter speaks of suggest we are relegated to cheerleaders and water boys in someone else’s ministerial game? No. We are the lively stones to offer spiritual sacrifices, that peculiar (purchased) people to shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light (v.9b). Did Jesus just call Simon Peter and Andrew to be "fishers of men" (Matthew 4:19) or all Christians? If we believe our ministerial direction is from Him, shouldn’t we trust He will sustain us?

Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip,
neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece. Luke 9:3

Return to the page directory
 

So Continuing Daily With One Accord
Acts 2:46

Return to the page directory

Where else would we look if we wanted to find out about the true nature of the early church than in the Bible? When else but at its very inception at Pentecost (by practically all accounts) and the days following would we find the purest example of what it was like? On that day, Scripture records about 3,000 "joined the church" – became followers of Jesus the Christ. Most missionaries would consider that a "pretty good day’s work." What about this "primitive church," as some call it, that produced such phenomenal growth? Can it be duplicated? Probably the reason this testimony is recorded is so it may be.

Peter had been "preaching," (Acts 2:14) was this then the fulfillment of Jesus pronouncement that he, Peter, would be the foundation of the "church?" It would be unreasonable to overlook his contribution, but The Bible does not subscribe to the idea that the Kingdom is dependent, built on or sustained by the works of men however highly regarded – especially highly regarded. Besides, the Bible is clear that no one other than the Holy Spirit convicts people. (1 Corinthians 1:30) John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible refers to this "office" of the Spirit as "electing grace." If there is any foundational principle of the church, it is that it is filled with the Holy Spirit. Only through Him may the truth of the Word be discerned. Only through Him is its total nonsense to the unbeliever made understandable to the believer. Actually, calling the "church" an "it" is entirely irresponsible. The "church is "we," not "it."

Nothing could demonstrate the point more than the statement made over and over in the Book of Acts that they were in one accord. Eleven times in the Book of Acts the phrase, "one accord" appears. They were together with one mind and one passion, eagerly, willingly. Perhaps Accord is best described in a prayer by Paul found in Romans 15:5-6, Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus: That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. They were. Throughout the New Testament (21 times) we are admonished, counseled, commanded to be likeminded. They were a community of believers who cared for one another and looked after one another. Acts 4:32 says they were of one heart and of one soul. Acts 2:42 speaks of their "fellowship," the Greek word for which implies sharing, community and communion. We are to be, as the original church, like the example Jesus set. The purpose driving them was glorifying God not increasing their numbers or "growing churches."

Communion (koinonia) indicates both the symbols of fellowship such as celebrating the Last Supper and the acts of fellowship these early Christians actually shared with one another. Paul makes a great deal of sharing with one another. He tells the Christians in Rome, for example, to help the poor among them to the degree that God has blessed them with wealth (Romans 12:13). In 1 Timothy 6:18, he not only suggests that Christians look after the needs of others and that they even bring poor people into their fellowship. Also from the Book of Romans that the "gentiles" in Macedonia and Achaia took up a collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem (Romans 12:13). Nelson’s Bible Dictionary suggests, "Those who have fellowship with Christ should enjoy fellowship with other believers. This fellowship ought to illustrate the very nature of God Himself." What testimony could be more forceful to the communicative power of alms giving than that provided by the vision of Cornelius, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God (Acts 10:3-4) Donations appear to have been for the purpose of caring for one another’s material needs rather than for building churches. One would be hard pressed to find any occasion where such is the case.

The Bible says the "church" was constantly in prayer and supplication (Acts 1:14). Some argue that "supplication" is not in the "original" text, others say it was and that it tells us the prayers were not petitions or request but "earnest, affectionate and continued application to God for the blessings requested from him by prayer." According to various sources, prayer to avert impending evil, for the descent of the Spirit, for courage and preparation for receiving the gift of the Spirit. – "They were as sheep in the midst of wolves" (Matthew Henry’s Commentary). Later Paul will instruct, Be careful for nothing; but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God (Phil 4:6)

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. Acts 4:32

Return to the page directory
 

HE FOLLOWETH NOT WITH US

And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. Luke 9:49-50
Return to the page directory

The event leading up to this particular Scripture is almost as fascinating as it is. In verse 46, the disciples started arguing who among them would be the greatest in the "kingdom of heaven. To which Jesus responded, Whosoever shall receive this little child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same is great (v. 48). Just as confusing as Jesus’ reply at first seems, John’s retort is even more puzzling. Jesus heard what their hearts were saying (v. 47) instead of their mouths. The "kingdom of heaven" in the Disciple’s minds was as with every Jew, the restoration of the kingdom of Israel. The two terms, for them, were synonymous. In a manner of speaking, the disciples, at this late juncture, were arguing over how the spoils of conquest were to be distributed; who would occupy lofty positions in the new government; who would be Prime Minister and who would be Ambassador.

In His reply to the longings of their hearts, Jesus spoke of little children (vs. 47,48); sat one down beside Him. The passage is frequently quoted as an illustration of the level of innocence we must strive to achieve. True enough, but behind this is another important lesson for us. John Gill's Exposition of the Bible suggests the child’s "meekness and humility; one that is not proud and haughty, ambitious of worldly honour, and envious at the superior state of others"(ref.) is just as important. Matthew Henry Commentary states the lesson for them (the Disciples) is to "be of the temper of this child, humble and quiet, and easy to itself; let them not affect worldly pomp, or grandeur, or high titles" (ref.). Seeking "worldly pomp," "grandeur" and "high titles in business, politics AND the church are dangerous pursuits. In business and government, one might expect pursuit of the "rat race." How unseemly that is in the church; and just as common as it is unseemly.

John’s response to all of this, that he and others saw non-believers rebuking demons in Jesus’ name, was possibly an attempt to deflect and distract Jesus harsh criticisms of their covetousness. It backfired and he twice rebuked this time for his exclusivity. Would, does, Jesus see our denominational infighting in the same way? Is He please over our in fighting and squabblingt over the sacraments of all things, the method and significance of baptism and, most important of all, the order of service. Is Jesus please when worship is in His name but the liturgy is not proper in the opinions of others? Jack Hayford wears a suit and tie when preaching; Rick Warren a Hawaiian shirt and slacks. Joel Osteen starts his services with a "pledge of allegiance to the Bible; Benny Hinn has "knock-down-drag-out" healing services; Roman Catholics venerate Mother Mary – all in the name of Jesus. Is one a heretic and the other a saint – one a Prime Minister the other a Pope? Now, we haven’t mentioned arguments over the Rapture, speaking in tongues, millenialism or dispensationialism – just to name a few divisive items of exotic theology. Wow, and John thought he was in trouble! Thank you, God, for the gift of your Son’s cleansing blood – or we would be in trouble. Of course, there are the TULP vs. the not-TULP controversy on that subject. What about works? Can one lose his salvation? Should women be ordained? Come to think of it, who should be ordained and who should be doing it – if anyone?

Is it possible what Jesus said on that day, centuries ago, has some modicum of relevance for us today, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us Luke 9:50. He was responding to John’s concern about those not of "the flock," doing things in Jesus’ name. Could His response be the same for us? Among Christians today, the "Scarlet Letter," (the mark of adultery) is a four-letter word – cult. There is no worse condemnation to heap upon the beliefs of another group. It the ultimate banishment from the genteel beliefs of the "true church" – if we could only figure out which one it is. Clearly, there are aberrations. No one is going to argue that Jimmy Jones and Charles Manson were other than Satan’s own demons. But then they didn’t demonstrate any sense at all of the New Covenant or the New Commandment, did they? Finally, what do we do with those in our own churches as well as those outside the polite company of Christian believers who disagree with our theology, ostracize them, burn them at the stake, stone them? We’ve been known to do that. What would Jesus say – do? He already has.

Return to the page directory
 

Were You Born in a Barn?

The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib:
but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider. Isaiah 1:3
Return to the page directory
 

Most know that being asked if we were born in a barn is a slur, an indictment on our heritage implying the target of the insult is from low, "common" stock – trash in other words. Basically, that’s what the prophet Isaiah is telling the people of Israel – that they were "too dumb to come in out of the rain." While these stupid beasts of burden are smart enough to know who their master is, the Nation of Israel did not. That’s what John is saying about the Jews in Jesus day. Speaking about Jesus he said, He came unto his own, and his own received him not. Not very bright – agreed? Do we? Let’s see.

In 21 translations of the Bible, only Dr. Luke recounts Jesus’ birth as taking place in a stable and has His mother bedding Him down in a "manger." The most descriptive of the three such descriptions is Luke 2:7 in which he explains there was no room for them in the inn. Matthew (1:24-25) barely makes mention of the event – no inn, no manger. Mark writes nothing at all about His birth. John (1:14) notes that, the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. Therefore, other that Luke’s account of His lowly birth, we have little to tell us of His social status. Was His family "as poor as church mice?" In many ways it doesn’t matter how well He was born because we have good information on how he lived. We know for example that the wife of one of Herod’s overseers, and some others made donations to Christ’s ministry (Luke 8:3.) In case you don’t recognize the name, she, Joanna is mentioned again in Luke 24:10 as one who were witnesses to Christ’s resurrection. A number of times He was a guest in the home of Peter (Matthew 8:14, Matthew 9:28, Matthew 17:25, Mark 1:29) Luke (4:38) also recounts His healing Peter’s mother-in-law. Matthew 8:20 gives an account of how He depicts His own assessment of His material worth to a scribe vowing unfailing loyalty to Him. He said, foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head. Probably at that point the scribe went looking for someone else to fix his star to. We know that Jesus made His "headquarters" in the city of Capernaum (Matthew 4:13.) This is where Peter and Andrew had their fishing business and where Matthew was a tax collector. It is doubtful he had His own church and parish-house there but, instead, lived with Peter (Mark 2:1) when He was in town. In short, He was an itinerant preacher without any visible means of support. Born in a barn, at least according to Luke, He didn’t seemed to have climbed the social ladder in His lifetime. If He was a "carpenter" He never seemed to practice the trade. Notice His trade is mentioned twice in the New Testament which Easton’s Bible Dictionary describes as "an artificer in stone, iron, and copper, as well as in wood." It is doubtful, that although they were in their hometown, Andrew and Peter continued their fishing business or that Matthew worked 9 to 5 at his tax collecting business. Remember, Paul who was a tent-maker never stitched one.

None of these guys seemed on a success track – perhaps because the economy of Galilee pretty well blocked any "upward mobility." Of the bunch, Matthew seems the only likely candidate to be called even moderately successful – and only if he lived up to the reputation of his "profession." If Jesus was preaching Prosperity Gospel at the Capernaum Synagogue, they either didn’t understand what He was saying or just simply ignored Him. Maybe they didn’t believe Him because He wasn’t practicing the Prosperity Gospel presumably He was preaching. Instead He was not only associating with bums around town and taking them home with Him, He was holding them up as examples – such as the widow and her mite.

34 times the word "poor" appears in the Gospels. For this emphasis, some have suggested He was more interested social rather than religious reform. In the Gospels, there are 5 Greek terms for money – its used 18 times in the Gospels. In none of these does Jesus recommend His disciples regard it in any way but distrustfully. There was one disciple who made money the focus of his life. That was Judas. The rest did not seek well paying, prestigious jobs in order to honor and impress Him with their lavish offerings and tithing. Incidentally, He seemed somewhat critical of such tactics. Instead, they gave up the careers they had to follow Him. Indeed, of the 17 times the phrase "follow me" is used in the Gospels, sacrifice follows, not fame and fortune. He may have associated with wealthy people, maybe one of whom followed Him. If we were looking today for their counterparts, they would more likely be found among the poor than the rich. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments. Luke 16:19-25

Return to the page directory
 

A Good Return on Your Investment
But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life. Mark 10:30

Return to the page directory

Such a deal! Who could resist? As one pastor put it preaching on the passages from the Book of Mark referred to as the "rich young ruler" in many Bibles, "That is a good return on your investment." He went on to tell us how sacrifice was the "investment" required to achieve "greatness." Is that what He really meant? Just imagine if we "gave up a mother and father to become Christian (Perhaps they were devout Buddhists.) we would get paid off in this life with 100 moms and pops. Heaven help the convert who comes from a large family. Imagine 6 or 700 sisters and that number more brothers. What in the world would someone do 100 houses, cars and the like? Does this passage mean that Donald Trump and Microsoft’s Bill Gates would wind up owning the world? How could that be possible? (Well, there was once two popes so maybe anything is possible.) You see, in verse 29 of Mark 10, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's. That’s where the promise of the 100-fold comes in. I give a hundred billion and I get that back 100X! WoW, now that’s prosperity and possibility thinking all rolled up in one. All of this with a guarantee better than the FDIC. Little wonder Abraham was in such a hurry to sacrifice Isaac, he knew he’d get a hundred just like him back. Simply amazing.

If this RX for success sounds like an eternal case if "Let’s Make a Deal," "The Board Room" and "The Millionaire" all rolled up into one, it should. The only thing is I determine the level of payoff by how much I am willing to sacrifice. Who needs to go the Vegas and gamble against the odds with such a pledge from the Lord God Almighty? Good by "Let’s Make a Deal," we’ve got one better! As the pastor told his mesmerized audience, "sacrifice is the route to greatness." There appears to be some justification for the point of view. That appears to be what the verse says, But he shall receive an hundredfold n